Commission Reference: 2010/D001 PLANNING · PDF fileCommission Reference: 2010/D001 . PLANNING...

Commission Reference: 2010/D001

PLANNING APPEALS COMMISSION

The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991

Article 7

EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC INTO OBJECTIONS TO THE DRAFT NORTHERN AREA PLAN 2016

SECTION 1:

PLANNING STRATEGY AND FRAMEWORK

Report by

Commissioners G Scott, R Daly and D O’Neill

Examination Dates: 19 September – 6 October 2011 23 January – 22 March 2012 Date of Report: 30 May 2014

CONTENTS Page

Acronyms used in Report

SECTION 1: Plan Strategy and Framework

1.0 Introduction to Report 1 1.1 Plan Aims, Objectives, and Strategy 3 1.2 General Issues 7 1.3 Settlements 10 1.4 Housing 27 1.5 Industry, Business and Distribution 58 1.6 Retail, Services and Offices 62 1.7 Tourism 64 1.8 Environment and Conservation 67 1.9 Education, Health, Community and Cultural Facilities 76 1.10 Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation 77 1.11 Public Services and Utilities 79 1.12 Lignite and Minerals 81 1.13 Transportation 86 1.14 Rathlin Island 91

1.15 Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site 94

ABBEVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT AA Appropriate Assessment AAP Area of Archaeological Potential ACMD Areas of Constraint on Minerals Development ADAP Ards and Down Area Plan 2015 AOAD Area of Opportunity for Apartment Development AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ASAI Areas of Significant Archaeological Interest ASI Area of Scientific Interest ASSI Area of Special Scientific Interest ATC Area of Townscape Character BMA Belfast Metropolitan Area BMAP Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 CA Conservation Area CBHMOSP Coleraine Borough Houses in Multiple Occupancy Subject Plan 2016 CTA Community Technical Aid CPA Countryside Policy Area DCAN 8 Development Control Advice Note 8: Housing in Existing Urban Areas DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government DE Department of Education DETI Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment DOE Department of the Environment DOS Development Opportunity Site dph Dwellings per hectare DRC Dispersed Rural Community DRD Department for Regional Development DSD Department for Social Development DTR Disused Transport Route

EIP Examination In Public EHS Environment and Heritage Service HGI Housing Growth Indicator HNA Housing Needs Assessment HPA Housing Policy Area HPGD Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes INI Invest Northern Ireland KSR Key Site Requirement LB Listed Building LCA Landscape Character Area LDF Local Development Framework LOTS Living Over the Shop LLPA Local Landscape Policy Area LTS Local Transport Studies MNR Marine Nature Reserve MOD Ministry of Defence NAP Northern Area Plan 2016 NEAP North East Area Plan 1987 – 2002 NEAPP Alteration to North East Area Plan 2002 Portrush Final Draft Proposals NI Northern Ireland NIBS Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy 2002 NICLA Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment 2000 NIEA Northern Ireland Environment Agency NIHE Northern Ireland Housing Executive NITB Northern Ireland Tourist Board NIWMS Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy 2006 NNR National Nature Reserve

NPFA National Playing Fields Association PPS 1 Planning Policy Statement 1: General Principles PPS 2 Planning Policy Statement 2: Planning and Nature Conservation New PPS 2 Planning Policy Statement 2: Natural Heritage PPS 3 Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking

PPS 3 Clarification Planning Policy Statement 3 (Clarification): Access, Movement and Parking

PPS4 Planning Policy Statement 4: Industrial Development

New PPS 4 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning and Economic Development

PPS 5 Planning Policy Statement 5: Retailing and Town Centres Draft PPS5 Planning Policy Statement 5: Retailing, Town Centres and Commercial

Leisure Development PPS 6 Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage

PPS 6 Addendum Planning Policy Statement 6 (Addendum): Areas of Townscape Character

PPS 7 Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments PPS7 Addendum Planning Policy Statement 7 (Addendum): Residential Extensions and

Alterations PPS 8 Planning Policy Statement 8: Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation PPS 10 Planning Policy Statement 10: Telecommunications

PPS 11 Planning Policy Statement 11: Planning and Waste Management

PPS 12 Planning Policy Statement 12: Housing in Settlements PPS12 Amendment Policy HS3 (Amendment) Travellers Accommodation PPS 13 Planning Policy Statement 13: Transportation and Land Use PPS 14 Planning Policy Statement 14: Sustainable Development in the Countryside PPS 15 Planning Policy Statement 15: Planning and Flood Risk Draft PPS15 Planning Policy Statement 15 (Draft) Planning and Flood Risk PPS 16 Planning Policy Statement 16: Tourism

PPS 17 Planning Policy Statement 17: Control of Outdoor Advertisements

PPS 18 Planning Policy Statement 18: Renewable Energy

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/pps03_clarification.htm

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/pps06_addendum.htm

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/pps11.htm

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/pps16_draft_.htm

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/pps17.htm

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/planning_policy_statement_18_renewable_energy-2.htm

PPS 21 Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside

draft PPS 23 Planning Policy Statement 23: Enabling Development

draft PPS 24 Planning Policy Statement 24: Economic Considerations

PRC Primary Retail Core PRF Prime Retail Frontage PSRNI A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland RDS 2035 Regional Development Strategy 2035 RDS Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025 adjusted RDS Adjustments to the Regional Development Strategy 2008 RIAP Rathlin Island Action Plan 2010-2012 RIP Rathlin Island Policy RSTNTP Regional Strategic Transport Network Transport Plan 2015 RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RTP Roger Tyms and Partners RTS Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002-2012 SAC Special Area of Conservation SDL Settlement Development Limit SDS Spatial Development Strategy (of the RDS) SEELB South Eastern Education and Library Board SEL Strategic Employment Location SLNCI Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance SPA Special Protection Area SPG Strategic Planning Guideline Draft SPPS Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (Draft) SRTP Sub Regional Transport Plan SuDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems SWAMP Southern Waste Management Partnership

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/common-policypps21.htm

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/planning_polidcy_statement_23_enabling_development_draft.htm

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/planning_statements/pps_24__draft__economic_considerations.htm

TCB Town Centre Boundary draft TSNI Tourism Strategy for Northern Ireland 2020 TPO Tree Preservation Order UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation WHS World Heritage Site WLTSFR Warrenpoint Local Transport Study Final Report WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works

Planning Appeals Commission Article 7

1.0. INTRODUCTION TO REPORT Plan Preparation and Scope of Report 1.0.1 The draft Northern Area Plan (NAP) takes in the administrative Council areas of

Ballymoney, Coleraine, Limavady and Moyle. It was published in May 2005 along with Technical Supplements. Comments about delays in publishing the draft plan are not objections to the plan. The public consultation process for the preparation of development plans is prescribed by statute under Article 5 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. In accordance with Article 3 of the Planning (Development Plans) Regulations (NI) 1991, the Department inserted notices in the local press announcing the launch of the draft plan, inviting comments on it. According to the Department almost 5000 letters of objection were received within the statutory six-week period, which ended on 6 July 2005. The objections were made available for public inspection and over 3600 counter-objections were submitted. Since we are satisfied that the Department has acted in accordance with the statutory requirements, we do not accept comments that the time period for commenting on the plan was inadequate.

1.0.2 The Department indicated to the Commission, by letter dated 23 September

2010, that it had withdrawn Green Belt (GB) and Countryside Policy Area (CPA) designations proposed by the plan in light of the publication of Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside (PPS 21) in June 2010. Objections to those proposed designations are therefore not before us.

1.0.3 Prior to the commencement of the Examination in Public (EIP) of the draft plan,

the Department also withdrew, in letters dated 19 April 2011 and 18 July 2011, a number of other draft plan policies and designations. Objections to those withdrawn policies and designations are likewise no longer before us and nor are objection issues withdrawn by objectors during or post the examination process.

1.0.4 Many of the issues addressed by the draft Plan are covered by a tier of regional

policies and documents that apply to all development plan areas in Northern Ireland (NI). As the Department acknowledged in its letter of 19 April 2011 a number of PPSs and draft PPSs have been published in the intervening years since the draft plan was published. Regional policy does not need to be repeated in a development plan and as our remit is limited to considering objections to the draft Plan, we have not commented on any concerns raised in evidence relating to the adequacy or appropriateness of regional policy or guidance.

1.0.5 As paragraph 38 of PPS 1: General Principles makes clear, designations made

under non-planning legislation, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and Conservation Areas (CAs), are set out in area plans for information purposes only. Accordingly we cannot consider objections to such designations, including those seeking either their removal or extension of boundaries.

Section1: Plan Strategy and Framework 1


1.0.6 The Technical Supplements are not part of the Plan and as such are not matters for our detailed consideration. They provide background and technical information, which has informed the Plan proposals. In consequence, objections to the Technical Supplements are not per se matters for the EIP. However, we accept that where information in the technical supplements is demonstrated to be incorrect the basis of policies that it informs, could be undermined. We will take such matters into account in dealing with issues raised in objections to specific draft plan policies.

1.0.7 Since our task is confined to considering objections, we have not taken account

of expressions of support for the draft plan, other than those contained in counter-objections. Similar or interrelated objections are considered together. We have not taken into consideration evidence that sought to extend the scope of the originally submitted objections. In examining a number of objections, we encountered difficulty in distinguishing between specific criticisms of the draft plan from general comments about the operation of the planning system. We also found difficulty with the way in which some objections were broken down and classified by the Department. A number of objection elements were repeated or the same argument was given different headings or descriptors. Where possible we sought to reclassify or rationalise objection elements in agreement with the Department. The Department also helpfully carried out its own exercise in this respect. We acknowledge that the manner in which many objections were framed, particularly the duplication of objection issues and universal objection to all plan policies by certain objectors did not assist in breaking down objection issues into relevant topics, particularly at strategic level. Helpfully a number of objectors subsequently withdrew objection elements they no longer wished to pursue. We appreciate their co-operation and assistance in so doing.

1.0.8 A considerable number of the objections submitted were very general or vague

in nature. Since we cannot anticipate or guess what is in the mind of an objector we have ignored comments that are clearly based on a misunderstanding of what the plan actually proposes or which do not set out clearly what changes are being sought. Our approach has, therefore, been to identify requests for changes to the plan, to assess the desirability or otherwise of those changes and to make our recommendations. These are set out in bold at the end of each section. Where the Department accepts individual recommendations in this report these should be clearly reflected in the text and maps of the adopted plan.



1.1. PLAN AIMS, OBJECTIVES and STRATEGY

Objections to the Plan Objectives 1.1.1 Paragraph 35 of Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1) refers to the role of

development plans in informing the public of the policy framework and land-use proposals that will be used to guide development decisions. This is consistent with the 1991 Planning Order whereby “development” is defined by reference to building, mining, engineering and other operations and material changes of use. Paragraph 37 of PPS 1 says that development plans will normally focus on proposals, zonings and designations. An area plan cannot provide a response to every economic and social issue facing the area. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to widen the scope of the plan objectives beyond the role and purpose of the plan. Nor is it necessary for an area plan to simply repeat the objectives of strategic policy. Objectives should be achievable and capable of being measured rather than being just a general aim or aspiration. The criticism that the plan lacks vision was not expanded on and we do not find any substance in the argument. Ultimately the issue of whether plan policies and proposals meet the stated objectives and satisfy the plan strategy will fall to be considered in subsequent sections of this report.

1.1.2 As made clear in our introductory section, we cannot take into consideration

evidence that sought to extend the scope of original objections. Some of the arguments and comments, made on behalf of Coleraine Borough Council (CBC), about the need for additional plan objectives or re-worded objectives, fall into that category. We are satisfied though that the issues in question were raised and debated again under individual topics relevant to those particular policies.

1.1.3 The Department agreed with CBC that the fourth objective of the plan while

recognising the need to identify land for housing development in general should also recognise the role and importance of social housing. Accordingly the Department suggested that this objective should now read:

“To identify land for housing development, including social housing, at locations

that will create compact and more sustainable settlements, with preference for sites within the urban areas”.

While we consider it implicit that provision for housing should include provision

for social housing we agree that the suggested re-wording explicitly identifies the importance of making such provision.

1.1.4 The objectives as drafted and ordered in the plan reflect the emphasis in the

plan strategy and in the RDS to promote the growth and development of the main and local hubs. The RDS 2035 also recognises, through the Spatial Framework Guidance (SFG) and SRG 13 in particular, the need to sustain rural communities living in the smaller settlements and the open countryside. The Department, in response to the concerns of CBC that the plan objectives do not explicitly recognise the role of these communities within the plan area, suggested that the following additional objective should be inserted:



“To consolidate and sustain small towns and villages as important local rural service centres, in accordance with the Regional Development Strategy”.

While we see merit in this additional objective we do not agree with the objector that the word “enhance” should be inserted instead of the phrase “consolidate and sustain”. The word “enhance” suggests a deliberate level of growth that may not be in line with general thrust of the RDS strategy for this lower tier of settlement.

1.1.5 The Department suggested a further objective be introduced to address the

concern of CBC that the draft plan failed to recognise the important role and function of Hamlets as vibrant and attractive places to live. This additional objective would read:

“To provide opportunities for single houses or small groups of houses and small scale economic and community development that act as focal points for the local rural community”

The introduction of these additional objectives requires a re-ordering and re-numbering of the existing objectives.

Objections to the Plan Strategy

1.1.6 A significant number of objections to the draft plan were classified by the

Department as objections to the Plan Strategy. To our mind, many of the concerns and issues raised in those objections relate more specifically to the topic based strategies, which are addressed later in our report. Other objections, classified as being to the Plan Strategy, are of a more general nature and are dealt with later in this chapter.

1.1.7 Following publication of the Regional Development Strategy 2025 (RDS 2025)

in September 2001 the 2003 Planning Amendment Order placed a statutory requirement on development plans to be in ‘general conformity’ with the RDS. The draft plan was prepared in the context of this requirement and the policy framework set out in the RDS 2025. In March 2012, just prior to the close of the EIP, the RDS 2035 replaced the RDS 2025. As the most recent expression of regional and spatial planning strategy we must take account of the RDS 2035 in assessing the draft plan and in formulating our recommendations on it. Where there are significant differences between the documents these will be highlighted in our report. When responsibility for the preparation of local development plans and development schemes transfers to local councils Article 8 (5) (a) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that the council must take account of the Regional Development Strategy. However, for the purposes of the current plan the requirement for it to be in general conformity with the RDS remains in place.

1.1.8 The purpose of setting out the Plan Strategy in the introductory section of the

draft plan is to address the RDS objectives and to articulate how the Plan aims to deliver the strategic plan framework in relation to the various topic areas. As the Plan Aim (P9 of Vol 1) makes clear it is intended that the draft plan will



“...provide a framework for development throughout the Northern Plan area, in general conformity with the principles and policies of the Regional Development Strategy..” The Plan Strategy, in line with the RDS 2025 and its successor document 2035, is based on the development of hubs and clusters. Sustainable development is at the heart of the RDS 2035. The draft plan strategy follows the general direction of strategic planning policy that there should be a hierarchy of settlements and that settlements provide for a more sustainable use of resources. Allied to this the draft plan strategy follows through the strategic planning emphasis on compact urban forms, which is to be achieved through reducing the use of Greenfield land and on recycling previously developed land.

1.1.9 The nature and scope of RDS policies are outside the scope of the EIP as is

the issue of whether the draft plan is in conformity with the RDS. We do not, however, accept the argument that the draft plan ignores the objectives of the RDS, that it is a demographic move to urbanise all people or move them eastwards within the Province and that it will destroy rural communities. As will become evident in the later section on housing, a substantial number of rural dwellings have been constructed in the years preceding, and post, publication of the draft plan and there remain a significant number of extant approvals for single dwellings in the countryside. We do not, therefore, agree with those who argued that the draft plan strategy discriminates against the rural way of life. Arguments about inadequate housing and economic allocations in the smaller settlements and of restraints on settlement limits will be considered in later sections of our report.

1.1.10 It is evident that a significant number of the objections that expressed concern

about the potential impact of plan policies on rural communities were premised on the possible impact of proposed GB and CPA designations. As previously highlighted, those designations have been withdrawn from the plan and what was perceived as a threat to the rural area is no longer in place. Regional planning policy, in the form of PPS 21, provides the policy context for assessing development proposals in the countryside throughout the plan area. Concerns about the role of personal circumstances, constraints on building on family land and of GB and CPA designations being contrary to Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are therefore outside the remit of the EIP.

1.1.11 Some general concerns were expressed about the statistical basis on which the

plan was prepared. Reference is made in the plan strategy to the provision of housing in line with the Housing Growth Indicator (HGI) set down when the RDS was first published in 2001. The HGI was subsequently revised and the Department helpfully provided a Housing Update Paper at the end of May 2011 to take account of those revisions. Accordingly concerns expressed about the plan not taking account of updated HGI figures have been addressed. We will consider more specific arguments about the appropriateness and distribution of HGIs later in our report. We have not, however, been provided with persuasive evidence that the statistical basis on which the plan was prepared is fundamentally flawed. Al in all we are not persuaded that the Plan Strategy is fundamentally flawed.



1.1.12 Several objectors queried why the Plan Strategy did not include a reference to the concept of ‘Living over the Shop’ (LOTS). Housing is one of a range of land uses that can facilitate the regeneration of town and village centres. We note that paragraph 27 of PPS 5 refers to the contribution of housing on upper floors to the enhancement of town centres while Policy HS 1 of PPS 12 provides the policy context for assessment of any proposals for ‘Living over the Shop.’ We agree with the objectors that the text in paragraph 5.8 (p11 of Vol 1) should highlight the role of LOTS and we recommend so accordingly.

Recommendations We recommend that:

The fourth objective of the plan should be amended to read:

“To identify land for housing development, including social housing, at locations that will create compact and more sustainable settlements, with preference for sites within the urban areas”.

An additional plan objective be added to the effect:

“To consolidate and sustain small towns and villages as important local rural service centres, in accordance with the Regional Development Strategy”.

A further plan objective be added to the effect:

“To provide opportunities for single houses or small groups of houses and small scale economic and community development that act as focal points for the local rural community.”

The plan objectives should be re-ordered and re-numbered to take account

of these amendments and additions



1.2. GENERAL ISSUES

Objections of a General Nature 1.2.1 As stated previously, many of the concerns and issues raised in objections

classified as general objections relate more specifically to the topic based strategies. Inevitably there is an element of duplication and overlap but where possible we have tried to address objections under the topic most relevant to the issue raised. We would reiterate again that it is a land use plan and can’t hope to deal with every economic, social, tourist and agricultural issue, amongst others, within the plan area. It is nigh impossible to draft policies that would deal with every possible scenario that may occur during the lifetime of a plan.

1.2.2 Three years elapsed between the publication of an Issues paper in May 2002

and publication of the draft plan in May 2005. A variety of circumstances has subsequently led to further and significant delay in the progress of the plan. We agree with objectors that those delays are most regrettable. It is not our role, however, to examine the reasons behind those delays but rather to report on those objections submitted within the statutory time period. We have, nevertheless, sought to take into account changes in regional policy and in social and economic circumstances in the intervening period. There are impending changes in the planning system with the transfer of planning functions to the new councils and we agree with the suggestion that it would be helpful for the implications of those changes to be set out in the Preamble to the plan.

1.2.3 As we acknowledged in our introduction to this report, a considerable number

of regional planning policies have been amended or introduced since the draft plan was published. Accordingly many of the omission matters touched on by objectors, but not fully explained or justified by them, do not require plan specific policies. Thus issues like development within floodplains and policies for flood defences have been overtaken by the introduction of regional policy in PPS 15: Planning and Flood Risk, published in June 2006. Similarly issues with regard to renewable energy are covered by PPS 18, published in August 2009. We agree with the Department that it would not be appropriate or justifiable to introduce a plan policy that would automatically preclude the development of offshore wind energy. The issue of views out to sea is a matter for the regime that will determine any future major offshore wind farms. PPS 21 now deals with most forms of development in the countryside, although some policies contained within the Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland (PSRNI) still remain in place.

1.2.4 PPS 7 and its various addendums deal with the quality of residential

development. We acknowledge that objectors have expressed specific concerns about residential developments within the coastal settlements, including their design, and we address issues specific to the plan area later in our report in respect of apartment development and student housing. We are not, however, persuaded that there is a need for a strategic policy to deal specifically with the quality of design in residential developments.



1.2.5 The draft plan incorporates a Hot Food Takeaway Policy for the settlement of Portrush; something that the Department acknowledged was a response to a very particular local matter. We do not, however, accept that there is a need for a strategic plan policy to deal with such facilities across the wider plan area. No persuasive evidence was provided to demonstrate that the matter is not capable of being dealt with by the planning management system and in the context of the existing Development Control Advice Note on the subject.

1.2.6 A number of objections were submitted by Government and Non Government

Organisations (NGOs) representing a diversity of interests and responsibilities. Understandably almost all of those organisations and interest groups were anxious that the draft plan should embrace matters of direct interest to them, including information about their respective interests, publications and responsibilities. While there is no bar in statute or general policy to the inclusion of relevant descriptive material in an area plan, we consider it important to ensure that the policies and proposals are immediately identifiable and not lost in a mass of supporting background information. Generally we are satisfied that the draft plan strikes a reasonable balance in this respect.

1.2.7 At the end of Part 3 of Volume 1 of the draft plan (p101) there are short

sections of descriptive text relating to the separate but inter-related topics of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing. The draft plan does not propose specific policies for any of these activities. While various objectors have commented on the need to enhance these sections or to proactively promote these activities, we agree with the Department that where there is regional policy in place there is no need for the plan to repeat those policies. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) has more specific responsibilities for the management and promotion of these activities. Comments were made on the accuracy of some of the factual information provided in these sections. Given the time gap since the plan was drafted the opportunity should be taken to update factual information and to correct any inaccuracies in the plan in general.

1.2.8 A number of objections raised issues in respect of agricultural diversification.

Others argued that there should be more active encouragement for the re-use of redundant rural buildings and protection of vernacular buildings. Regional policy deals with such issues, PPS 21 in particular, while a rural design guide, “Building on Tradition”, was published in May 2012 as supplementary planning guidance to PPS 21. We were not provided with a sustained argument that would persuade us that a policy equivalent of draft plan policy COU 9 for Rathlin Island should also be introduced for the Antrim Glen AONB.

1.2.9 We accept that loose or indeterminate wording could potentially undermine the

purpose of plan policies. However, planning policy, by its very nature, is rarely absolute. A judgement has to be made on the weighing and balancing of issues, including those that are directly in conflict. Phrases such as “loss of rural character” and “significant impact” form part of that weighing and balancing and are not to our mind inappropriate terms to use. Paragraph 59 of PPS 1 makes clear: “...development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance”. It is not within our power to override the presumption in favour of



development that is contained within that strategic policy, nor is it our role to dictate that there should be a plan led system.

1.2.10 The provision of open space in association with residential development does

not just rely on specific plan zonings. PPS 7 places requirements on the provision of open space and amenity land in conjunction with housing development. In the absence of substantiated evidence, we are not persuaded that there is a dearth of open space provision across the plan area.

1.2.11 While an objector queried why there are not more Areas of Townscape/Village

Character proposed for designation in the plan, in the absence of the identification of particular locations we cannot take this objection further. Another objector suggested that Garvagh and Kilrea should be considered for designation but no argument was developed to support this suggestion or to identify a specific area for our consideration and assessment. Again we cannot take this matter further. Given the small scale of the overview map for the plan area we see little benefit in seeking to identify existing Conservation Area boundaries on it. The boundaries are more appropriately identified in the individual settlement plans.

1.2.12 The district overview maps and those in the maps booklet contain a wide range

of information and proposed designations. It is important that this information is updated to take account of the withdrawal of certain proposed designations and to correct minor mapping errors identified by objectors. For example, Map Nos 3/43, 3/44 and 3/55 contained within the Maps Booklet should be grouped with those relating to Limavady District rather than with Coleraine District, as presently arranged. We are not clear what difficulty is likely to be encountered with the use of small stars on district maps to draw attention to more detailed maps and plan policies. It is unrealistic to expect individual designations to be plotted on the small scale district maps. For cartographic accuracy it is much more appropriate for them to be plotted on larger scale maps in the Maps Booklet. No explanation is provided by an objector as to why the draft plan does not comply with the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We cannot give further consideration to this objection.

Recommendations

We recommend that:

The Preamble to the Plan should set out the impending changes to the planning system with the transfer of planning functions to the new councils;

The opportunity should be taken to update factual information and to correct any inaccuracies in the plan in general;

Map Nos 3/43, 3/44 and 3/55, contained within the Maps Booklet,

should be grouped with other maps relating to Limavady District rather than with Coleraine District, as presently presented.



1.3. SETTLEMENTS Objection to Policy SET 1: Settlement Hierarchy General Objections 1.3.1 In seeking the inclusion of additional land for development within settlement

limits throughout the plan area a large number of objectors made reference to plan Policy SET 1 and the settlement hierarchy it proposes. Many of these objections contained no evidence to explain why the settlement hierarchy contained within SET 1 was deemed to be flawed. Nor was there an explanation of the relevance of SET 1 to the overall objection. Consequently we cannot assess these elements of those objections.

1.3.2 In other cases, the evidence was part of representations seeking increased

housing allocations, a matter that is more appropriately addressed in Section 1.4 dealing with that particular issue. The purpose of SET 1 is to define the settlement hierarchy within the four districts and to establish the broad principles of development at each level within it. It is not intended or designed to allocate individual sites or to determine the precise extent of development limits. Such matters do, however, fall to be considered in the relevant settlement sections of the report, when we deal with site specific matters.

Objections to the Settlement Hierarchy of the Main Towns 1.3.3 Paragraph 25 of PPS 12 states that a development plan will identify the

settlement hierarchy in the plan area and the level in each hierarchy within which a settlement should fall. In that respect the settlement hierarchy and strategy contained in SET 1 is based on the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) for Northern Ireland, as set out in Chapter 5 of the RDS 2025 and illustrated on Key Diagram 4 (page 45). The SDS envisaged the towns of Coleraine and Limavady acting as main hubs with Ballymoney and Ballycastle functioning as local hubs, with each performing strategic role as centres of employment and services for urban and rural communities. The Plan Objectives and Plan Strategy recognise and endorse the respective roles for each of these main towns in the SDS.

1.3.4 The 10 Year Review of the RDS, published for consultation in January 2011,

proposed that Coleraine be elevated to the role of a sub-regional centre with Limavady, Ballymoney and Ballycastle identified as main centres. The 10 year Review also put forward the suggestion that Coleraine, Ballymoney and Ballycastle be identified as a cluster of towns whereby, because of their proximity, merit was seen in promoting co-operation rather than competition between them in the provision of services for the wider area.

1.3.5 In January 2012 the Northern Ireland Executive approved the Regional

Development Strategy 2035, replacing the RDS 2025. The Spatial Framework outlined in Diagram 2.3 (page 26) reverts back to the hierarchical status and terminology identified in the RDS 2025, whereby Coleraine and Limavady are seen as main hubs and Ballymoney and Ballycastle as local hubs. The RDS 2035 stresses the need, also identified in the 10 Year Review, for the clustering of hubs so that services do not need to be duplicated but rather shared. The



identification of all four hubs as a single cluster provides an opportunity to develop complementary services yet allow each of the settlements to play an important role within their respective districts. As local hubs Ballymoney and Ballycastle should be the main focal points for development within their respective districts, but that role at district level should not diminish the elevated importance of Coleraine and Limavady as the main hubs within the plan area and the locations where the most significant level of development within the plan area should be centred.

1.3.6 It is not within the scope of the plan process to alter the hierarchical status of

settlements identified at strategic level by the RDS. The most recent expression of hierarchical status is that set out in the RDS 2035. We cannot therefore support the argument put forward by Ballymoney Borough Council that the town of Ballymoney should be elevated from the status of a local hub to that of a main hub.

Objections to the distinction between ‘Other Main Towns’ and ‘Small

Towns’ and between ‘Large Villages’ and ‘Small Villages’ 1.3.7 We are satisfied that the principle of identifying a hierarchy of settlements in the

Plan Strategy as identified in SET 1 is essential to the achievement of the RDS objectives for the NAP area. Nevertheless we agree with the position taken by the Department at the EIP that the subdivision and distinction set out in the draft plan between ‘Other Main Towns’ and ‘Small Towns’ and between ‘Large Villages’ and ‘Small Villages’ introduces additional layers of classification that are not particularly helpful or necessary.

1.3.8 The proposed removal of the distinction within the ‘town’ category addresses

the concerns of the objector who argued that Bushmills should be reclassified as a ‘Main Town’. We do not, however, accept the argument from the same objector that the other towns identified in the draft plan as falling within the category of ‘Small Towns’ should continue to have that distinction placed on them. It is inevitable that provision will be made for varying degrees of growth across the plan area between the various settlements. Individual allocations are a matter for consideration under the allocation process, a number of factors being required to be taken into account. The case for a greater housing allocation for Bushmills will be considered in due course against Policy HOU 1 and at an individual site level when site specific matters are dealt with.

1.3.9 We conclude that the sub-category distinction within the town and village

hierarchy table in SET 1 should be removed. The removal of the distinction between ‘Large Villages’ and ‘Small Villages’ addresses the concerns expressed by the objector who argued that Articlave should be deemed a ‘Large Village’ rather than a ‘Small Village’.

Objections seeking a more significant role for Hamlets in the settlement hierarchy

1.3.10 The important role of small settlements in sustaining rural communities is

acknowledged in the RDS 2035, as it was in the preceding RDS 2025 on which the draft plan was predicated. The RDS does not provide any guidance on what distinguishes villages from small settlements and the SDS makes no



distinction between the approach to be taken in allocating growth to each tier. While small scale expansion is not ruled out at strategic level, it is also evident that the overarching emphasis is on growing the main and local hubs, with consolidation rather than expansion generally envisaged for the lower settlement tiers. Objections seeking outward expansion of hamlet limits, based on arguments such as planning form, will be considered in the settlement section of our report. Given the plan emphasis on consolidation within the small settlements we do not accept, as argued by one of the objectors, that it is necessary or appropriate to use the detailed evaluation framework set out on page 114 of the RDS 2025. Likewise we do not endorse the unsubstantiated argument that all hamlets in the plan should have identified housing land. Given that potential development in hamlets is likely to be small in scale it is not necessary or appropriate to zone land for a specific purpose.

1.3.11 The hierarchical approach advanced in SET 1 is reflective of and consistent

with the sustainability objectives of the plan. Accordingly we do not agree with the argument presented by one objector that the settlement limits for hamlets in Coleraine district have been drawn too tightly. Nor do we endorse the general argument advanced by Coleraine Borough Council that small scale Greenfield development should be allowed for within hamlets right across Coleraine district. The approach advanced by the Council could, to our mind, result in a cumulative impact that would be out of balance with the overall growth strategy for the different tiers in the settlement strategy.

1.3.12 While the Council’s objection did not identify proposed alterations to the hamlet

limits of individual settlements, other objectors have advanced site specific objections. These will be considered in the relevant settlement sections of our report and their merits assessed against physical planning considerations such as physical form and development history.

Objections seeking additional small settlements/hamlets within the plan area in general.

1.3.13 Different objectors suggested a number of locations across the plan area as

being suitable for designation as a small settlement or hamlet. However, the location of some of the suggested settlements is far from clear to us due to the absence of either maps or a reasoned justification or explanation of the area being put forward for consideration. In other instances maps that were provided failed to adequately identify the scope or extent of the settlement being argued for. In such circumstances it is impossible to second guess the objector’s intent and we cannot give meaningful consideration to such objections.

1.3.14 Hamlets constitute the lowest group of the settlement hierarchy found in SET 1.

While the RDS 2025 and its successor, the RDS 2035, both refer to the importance of vibrant rural communities the overarching emphasis at a strategic level is on focusing development on the larger settlements, in particular on the hubs and clusters of hubs. Care is therefore required to ensure that the overall distribution of development across the settlement hierarchy is not unevenly skewed. We note that the draft plan proposes hamlet status for 33 locations across the whole of the plan area, including the identification for the first time of hamlets within Coleraine District. Hamlet status is also proposed for a number



of locations within Ballymoney and Moyle Districts that are additional to those identified in NEAP 2002.

1.3.15 Almost inevitably, there will be variations in the characteristics of hamlets

across the plan area, not least in the availability of local services and community facilities within them. We note that the Department has sought to use the criteria in Table 1, submitted in Appendix 6 of its evidence, as a guideline for identifying hamlets. The table sets out the type and range of services that would trigger consideration for hamlet designation, for example local shops, sewage works, primary schools, churches or community halls and bus services. The presence of one of these characteristics alone is not to our mind sufficient justification for conferring hamlet designation. While other factors, such as a sense of place, could be argued to be a relevant consideration, we agree with the Department that an element of judgement has to be made. In that respect we consider that the criteria set out in Table 1 provides a rational basis for making such judgements and we will use it to assess the arguments made for additional small settlements, as set out below on a district by district basis.

Objections to the absence in the plan of an equivalent of paragraph 21.6 of the North East Area Plan 2002

1.3.16 It is notable that in the NEAP 2002 relatively few hamlets were designated

across Ballymoney, Coleraine and Moyle Districts. In that particular context paragraph 21.6 of NEAP 2002 provided an appropriate response for dealing with groups of housing and building clusters in the countryside that did not have the benefit of settlement designation. To our minds the matter has now largely been addressed in the draft plan through the number of new hamlet designations that are proposed in Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle Districts. The proposed rationalisation of hamlet designations within Limavady District, which we consider in more detail below, should ensure a more consistent categorisation of this lowest tier of settlement within the wider plan area.

1.3.17 We acknowledge that there will remain certain house clusters across the plan

area that will not have the benefit of settlement status. Nevertheless, PPS 21, through Policy CTY 2a, allows for the granting of planning permission for a dwelling at an existing cluster of development. It is for the development management and not the development plan process to address arguments about whether the Department is interpreting Policy CTY 2a correctly or too rigidly. We are not persuaded that a tailored policy is required for the plan area and therefore agree with the Department that the retention of a policy equivalent to paragraph 21.6 in the successor plan would be likely to cause confusion and uncertainty. In that respect it would not meet the requirement of paragraph 35 of PPS 1 to provide a basis for rational and consistent decision making. We do not support the various arguments advanced in support of a policy equivalent of paragraph 21.6.



Objections to Policy SET 1 within Ballymoney District 1.3.18 The Department acknowledged at the EIP that the identification of Dunaghy in

the draft plan as a ‘small settlement’ owed more to its inability to accommodate future growth than because of its existing functionality. The limitations placed on the growth of the settlement by the immediate presence of Lignite reserves will be considered in more detail in section 1.12 of the strategic report, dealing specifically with the issue of Lignite.

1.3.19 Given that there are physical and other factors that will limit the growth potential

of other settlements within the settlement hierarchy we agree with the Department that functionality should be determining factor in establishing the plan’s settlement hierarchy. Accordingly we agree with the Department that it is appropriate to reclassify Dunaghy as a village in SET 1, based on its existing role and functionality.

Objections seeking additional small settlements/hamlets within Ballymoney District

1.3.20 There is a ribbon of long established housing on the west side of Corkey Road

and several other properties to the south. We do not consider that this small grouping, which lacks community facilities, needs to be defined by a settlement limit. We also note that the village of Loughguile and hamlet of Corkey lie within close proximity to the north and south respectively.

1.3.21 Strategic objections were submitted but not pursued at the Stage 1 examination

in respect of the possibility of conferring hamlet status on a location centred on Drones/Fivey/Ballyveely Road junctions. One of the objections identified a suggested settlement limit and we note that in its response to stage 2 objections on this same matter the Department accepted the principle of conferring settlement status at this location. We will address the scope and extent of the proposed settlement designation in the settlement section of our report.

1.3.22 An objector has argued for Macfinn to be recognised as a small settlement but

did not identify a settlement limit for our consideration. At present there is a ribbon of long established dwellings on the north side of Macfinn Road but no obvious community facilities. The objector’s identification of a large undeveloped field adjoining the cottages at Railway Terrace does not change our opinion that there is no justification to designate a small settlement at this location.

Objections to Policy SET 1 within Coleraine District

1.3.23 We accept that the area known locally as Culcrow, which lies approximately 8

km south of Coleraine, and is centred on an area centred around Rusky Park, Curragh Road (A54) and Knockaduff Road demonstrates some of the characteristics and facilities identified in Table 1 as deserving of hamlet status, namely a primary school, community play group and a number of houses. However, the various facilities relied on to justify hamlet status are spread out over some distance and are removed from the main body of housing at Rusky



Park. A grouping of housing alone does not justify hamlet designation and we cannot support the limited arguments advanced.

1.3.24 There are up to 30 dwellings strung out on either side of Artidillon Road and

around its junction with Dunboe Road. Located approximately 2 km south of the village of Castlerock and a similar distance west of the village of Articlave, the objector refers to this grouping as Carneetly. There are no community facilities evident within the area identified by the objector, nor is there evidence of the other characteristics used to identify potential hamlet designations within the plan area. In the absence of any community focal point, and taking account of the immediacy of the village settlements at Castlerock and Articlave, we see no justification for conferring hamlet status at this location.

1.3.25 An objector has argued that a grouping of properties on Ballymadigan Road in

and around its junction with Mussenden Road should be designated as a hamlet. We find little merit in this suggestion as there is an overriding absence of existing community facilities associated with these properties. There is no obvious focal point around which a settlement limit could be centred. In addition the village of Castlerock is situated less than 1 km to the north, while the village of Articlave is less than 2 km to the SE. We find no justifiable basis on which to uphold this objection.

1.3.26 There is a substantial and long established public housing scheme within the

SE fringes of the settlement limit defined for the town of Coleraine. Known locally as Windy Hall, this area of housing is included within the limits of settlement of the town in the extant NEAP 2002 and again in the draft plan. While it has its own distinct community identity Windy Hall is visually and physically connected to the town. It would be illogical to leave it outside the settlement limits yet identify it as a hamlet. We do not, therefore, agree with those objectors who have suggested that it should be designated as a hamlet and therefore removed from physical development limits of Coleraine. We do not support these objections.

1.3.27 There are in the order of 50 dwellings situated within the housing scheme,

mostly public, known as Drumadragh. Located off the Cloyfin Road (B17), this house grouping is located some 2 km NE of the settlement limits of Coleraine. Numerically there a greater number of dwellings at this location than in some of the other settlements conferred with hamlet status under SET 1. However, we agree with the Department that house numbers alone should not be the determining factor in conferring hamlet status. There is an absence of community facilities directly associated with the housing scheme and any present in the general area are removed from the main cluster. While the existing housing may be long established and have an identifiable character, we are not persuaded that there is a justifiable basis either for drawing a settlement limit around the present housing or for including additional undeveloped land to add to it. Accordingly we do not agree with the objector that hamlet status is necessary or justified in this instance.

1.3.28 Several objections argued that Craigahulier, which lies south of Portrush,

should be designated as a hamlet. There are a number of dwellings grouped together at the junctions of Gateside Road and Ballylagan Road. There are, though, no obvious community facilities or focal points associated with these



houses. While various field numbers were identified no argument or evidence was provided to suggest a settlement limit for us to assess and we cannot anticipate the line of reasoning that the objectors are seeking to present. We conclude that Craigahulier should not be considered for hamlet status.

1.3.29 Bellany Road is a rural minor road located between Coleraine and the village

of Articlave. An objector argues that a small settlement should be designated at what is referred to as Bellany but no evidence is provided indicating a suggested settlement limit, other than a proposal to include some land and properties within it. We see little rational or basis for conferring hamlet status at this location.

1.3.30 The Loughan (also referred to as Mill Loughan or Fish Loughan) lies less than

2 km SE of Coleraine along the eastern bank of the River Bann. Strategic objections were submitted but not pursued at the Stage 1 examination in respect of the possibility of conferring hamlet status on the Loughan. One of the objections identified a suggested settlement limit and we note that in its response to stage 2 objections on this same matter the Department accepted the principle of conferring settlement status at this location. We will address the scope and extent of the proposed settlement designation in the settlement section of our report.

Objections to Policy SET 1 within Limavady District

1.3.31 The draft plan proposed that Ballykelly be designated as a large village and not

a small town, the status afforded to it in the Limavady Area plan 1984-99. At the EIP the Department acknowledged that there was some merit in the arguments put forward by the objectors in seeking a restoration of town status to Ballykelly.

1.3.32 Subsequent to publication of the draft plan the army base at Ballykelly was

closed and the extensive previous military housing associated with the base was released onto the open market. The Department acknowledged that if it had been aware that this was likely to happen it may have treated the status of Ballykelly somewhat differently. No objections were submitted to the draft plan seeking to include the army base and associated housing lands within the settlement limits of Ballykelly. As previously intimated our consideration of the draft plan must be limited to those matters raised in objection within the prescribed period. The release of the army lands onto the open market is not therefore sufficient justification for upgrading the hierarchical status of Ballykelly. Nevertheless we agree with the objectors that Ballykelly already performs a role within Limavady District that is more akin to that of a town than a village. Taking all factors into account we endorse the Department’s indication and willingness to reclassify Ballykelly as a ‘town’ in the SET 1 settlement hierarchy.



Objections to the loss of hamlet status in Limavady District 1.3.33 The extant Limavady Area Plan 1984-1999 and the Limavady District Hamlet

Subject Plan 1989-1999 designated 14 Hamlet settlements within Limavady District. Six of those (Ballynarrig/Ballydarrog, Bolea, Carrowclare, Drumraighland, Killywool and Myroe) are not proposed for re-designation in the draft plan and Limavady Council is one of a variety of objectors seeking their reinstatement. The Council has also proposed the designation of Oughmoyle as a new settlement.

1.3.34 Notwithstanding that the four districts within the plan area may historically have

had different approaches to the identification of small settlements the proposed plan provides an opportunity to rationalise that approach and bring it into line with strategic regional planning guidance. We do not therefore accept the general argument that all existing hamlet designations in Limavady District should automatically be repeated again in the successor plan. The replacement of one area plan by another properly enables the Department to assess the situation afresh and in light of current policy and guidance.

1.3.35 Since the plan was drafted, Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21):

Sustainable Development in the Countryside has come into operation. Policy CCTY 2a of PPS 21 allows, in certain instances, for new dwellings in existing clusters without the need for a formalised settlement limit. An agglomeration of houses in the open countryside or several nodes of houses without accompanying services or community facilities is not, to our mind, a sustainable basis for conferring hamlet status. Accordingly we are not persuaded by the general arguments presented by Limavady Council or those put forward by the other objectors that Ballynarrig/Ballydarrog, Bolea, Carrowclare, Drumraighland, Killywool or Myroe merit having hamlet status conferred on them within the SET 1 hierarchy. While some of these locations have some of the facilities identified in Table 1 of the Department’s criteria for assessing the merits of small settlement designation none of the locations have the combination of characteristics and community facilities that would in our view justify hamlet designation. While some objectors have argued that non designation will have negative social and economic implications for these areas these are unsubstantiated assertions. Similarly we see no merit or justification for designating Oughmoyle as a new hamlet in the plan.

Objections seeking the identification of additional small settlements/hamlets in Limavady District

1.3.36 An objector argued that a hamlet should be designated at Tartnakilly, but in the

absence of any map, suggested settlement limit or more detailed argument, we are not in a position to assess the merits of this suggestion.

1.3.37 There are several relatively recently constructed dwellings fronting Terrydo

Road in and around its junction with Ballyavelin Road. These properties in combination with several existing dwellings at the road junction do not however constitute a scale or form of settlement grouping that would merit hamlet status being conferred on it. We do not therefore agree with the objector that the future development of the area would best be served by the designation of a development limit at this location.



1.3.38 An objector claimed that the draft plan makes insufficient provision for rural housing in the Magilligan area, but does not explain how this objection should be pursued in respect of SET 1. Farm maps are provided but there is no reference to or suggestion that a settlement limit should be drawn and a small settlement designated. Another objector suggested the designation of an area referred to as Crindle. Whilst there is roadside residential development along the Seacoast Road and a bar/restaurant and a riding school/ livery business are located within the area identified, we do not consider that this equates to the characteristics, services and facilities necessary for the area to be designated as a small settlement. A suggestion was also made that a new settlement be identified at Colnamonan. This area is located south of Feeny and consists of a concentration of detached dwellings along a narrow rural road. There are, however, no community facilities or sense of place which one would expect a small settlement to contain. We do not support any of these objections.

1.3.39 We see little merit in the suggestion from an objector that some existing

buildings east of Artikelly should be designated for development. A settlement limit has already been identified for Artikelly in the plan and the objection lands are too removed from these to be considered as a natural or necessary extension of that settlement. We are also not persuaded that the objection lands merit designation as a small settlement in their own right.

1.3.40 An objector requested that an area of rural countryside, which is referred to as

Benedy, should be designated as a Dispersed Rural Community. The objection does not describe the area envisaged for designation and there is no location map accompanying it that would assist our assessment. While the objection described Benedy as lying to the southwest of Dungiven we believe that it more likely takes in the countryside in and around the River Roe, including Benedy Glen, to the east and southeast of the town. Criteria for the designation of an area as a DRC is set out in paragraph 4.6 of PPS 21 and this includes that: the location in a remoter rural area and away from areas of development; there is association with a traditional focal point, where there is convincing evidence of local community activity; other facilities or services, such as a shop, public house or sewage treatment works; a strong community identity perhaps manifest through a local community association, church organisation or sports club; and a locally significant number of dwellings that have been built over time. No substantive evidence was presented to demonstrate how this criterion is met. Although there is a community centre within the locality, the area is in relative proximity to the town of Dungiven and residential development located along Corick Road is not considered to be locally significant and appears to be relatively recently constructed. We conclude that the proposal does not merit our support.



Objections seeking the identification of additional small settlements/hamlets in Moyle

1.3.41 Moyle District Council objected to the non-inclusion within the plan of the

locations of Castlecatt, Billy, Moyarget, Runkerry, Currysheskin and The Aird as small settlements. No maps were submitted with the objection identifying the locations and possible settlement limits, nor was there any other information provided that would have assisted our assessment. Given the limited nature of the arguments presented on behalf of the Council, we cannot recommend that any of these locations merit designation as a settlement under SET 1.

1.3.42 The argument to have The Aird, situated to the east of the Giants Causeway,

identified as a hamlet was also raised by another objector. While a map was provided to suggest the inclusion of undeveloped land within any settlement limit no proposal was advanced setting out a suggested settlement limit for the proposed hamlet designation. We acknowledge that there are a number of properties at this location, many which appear to be used as holiday accommodation or as second homes. An agglomeration of houses in the open countryside without accompanying services or community facilities is not, however, a sustainable basis for conferring hamlet status. Accordingly the objection is not sustained.

1.3.43 Another objector made representations to have Castlecatt, which is situated SE

of Bushmills, recognised as a small settlement. A map was provided by the objector identifying lands thought to be suitable for inclusion within a proposed settlement limit but again no details were provided to indicate what should constitute the composite settlement. This leaves us in the position of having to second guess the objector’s definition of what land and properties should be considered suitable for formal designation. In any event we are not persuaded that the small number of houses at this location is a sufficient basis or justification for designation under SET 1.

1.3.44 The area referred to as ‘The Castle’, off Harbour Road Ballintoy, takes in a

number of buildings within a relatively confined area. While there is a mixture of dwellings, outbuildings and tourist related uses at this location we are not persuaded that there is sufficient concentration of community facilities to justify formally identifying the area as a small settlement under SET 1, as sought by the objector. We are reinforced in our conclusion by the fact that Ballintoy village lies less than a kilometre to the east and is better placed to service the development needs of the surrounding area.

1.3.45 Policy SET 1 does not include any Dispersed Rural Communities (DRCs) within

the plan area. However, an objector argues that there is justification for such a designation within Glenshesk Valley. While a map indicates the general location of the suggested DRC there is an absence of evidence articulating more precisely the area and facilities considered suitable for such a designation. The previous policy context for DRCs, as espoused in SP5 and HOU 7 of the PSRNI, has been superseded by PPS 21. We note however, that PPS 21 makes provision for DRC designation through the development plan process, setting down a number of criteria. We are not persuaded that the very generalised and extensive area put forward by the objector meets all of the



identified criteria. While Glenshesk Valley is a rural location Ballycastle lies within 6km to the north and Armoy 8 km to the west. There is also the proposed hamlet designation of Cromaghs within Glenshesk Valley, some 5km to the west. Given the general absence of a traditional focal point and of other community facilities and services that would merit consideration for DRC designation we conclude that the objection is unsubstantiated and does not justify our support.

1.3.46 An argument for DRC designation is also tentatively put forward by another

objector in respect of an area within Glenaan, approximate to the scheduled monument of Ossian’s Chambered Grave. The objection primarily seeks identification of the area for tourism promotion, a matter we will consider further in section 1.7. We see little merit in the alternative argument that the area identified on the objector’s map could be considered for designation as a DRC. There is neither the combination of social or community facilities within the identified area that would satisfy the qualifying criteria set out in paragraph 4.6 of PPS 21. The location is also not remote, being within 3 km of the village of Cushendall. We do not support this objection.

1.3.47 Cushendall Development Group have suggested consideration should be given

to allowing small scale housing settlements (5-9 houses) in rural parts of the Glens of Antrim. PPS 21 provides the regional planning context for proposals within the rural area and we note that Policy CTY 2a allows for the possibility for new dwellings in existing clusters. Provision is also made within Policy CTY 5 for social and affordable housing on the sort of scale sought by the objector while Policy CTY 2 allows for small clusters or clachans of up to 6 dwellings within Dispersed Rural Communities. The objection does not however seek any DRC designations and no specific locations for such housing groups have been put forward for us to consider. In the context of the limited evidence and arguments presented to us we do not consider that a bespoke policy in the plan is justified.

Recommendations for Policy SET 1

We recommend that:

The Settlement Hierarchy in SET 1 refers only to Towns and Villages,

removing the sub-classification of ‘Other Main Towns’, ‘Small Towns’, ‘Large Villages’ and ‘Small Villages;’

Dunaghy is designated as a Village in the Settlement Hierarchy; Drones Road/Ballyveely Road is designated as a hamlet in the

Settlement Hierarchy; The Loughan is designated as a Hamlet in the Settlement Hierarchy; Ballykelly is designated as a Town in the Settlement Hierarchy.



Objections to Policy SET 2: Development within Settlement Development Limits 1.3.48 While a number of objections sought the removal of Policy SET 2 we are not in

a position to assess generalised objections where no strategic argument was presented to support this reference. In a substantial number of objections Policy SET 2 was simply referred to in support of the main argument of the objection, namely that of seeking the inclusion of a particular site within a settlement limit. Such site specific objections are assessed in the relevant section relating to that particular settlement.

1.3.49 Policy SET 2, as drafted, states that: “Planning permission will only be granted

on zoned sites for development proposals that comply with the specified use.” Concern was expressed by a number of objectors that this particular choice of wording is rigid and too inflexible to take account of changing circumstances over the plan period or to allow complementary uses on zoned land.

1.3.50 The purpose and function of development plans is set out in paragraph 35 of

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1). Paragraph 35 states that “development plans provide a basis for rational and consistent decisions on planning applications and provide a measure of certainty about which types of development will and will not be permitted”. The draft plan identifies zonings that set out what the Department considers to be the appropriate land uses for all significant areas with development potential in towns and villages within the plan area, an approach that is consistent with that advocated in paragraph 35 of PPS 1. We endorse the approach in the draft plan for hamlets (para 1.4.8) that, to ensure flexibility and to reflect the potential small scale of development, land should not be zoned for specific purposes within them. We see no need or justification for changing that approach.

1.3.51 While paragraph 35 of PPS 1 does not refer to ‘certainty’ but rather to a

“measure of certainty” we do not agree that the introduction of qualifying wording such as ‘favourable consideration’, ‘in general conformity’, ‘unless an appropriate use comes forward’, ‘pay proper accord to’ or the introduction of the word ‘normally’ adds any useful meaning or clarity to the policy. Such wording could undermine the rationale for the use of zonings in the Plan and therefore be at variance with the principles of paragraph 35, seeking consistency and certainty. We do, though, endorse the Department’s suggested revision to the policy headnote to remove the word ‘only’ from it as it appears at the bottom of page 15 and top of page 16 of the draft plan. The word ‘only’ is negative in its connotation and removing it would allow the policy to be expressed in a positive manner.

1.3.52 The concern that SET 2 would not allow alternative proposals to be considered

on zoned land or allow complementary uses must be set in the context of paragraph 35 of PPS 1 and Article 25 (1) of the Planning (NI) Order 1991. Article 25 (1) requires the Department to have regard to both the development plan and any other material considerations when considering an application for planning permission. There is also provision within Article 31 (1) (a) of the Order for consideration of a proposal that involves a substantial departure from the development plan. Thus, while zonings are designed to provide a degree of



certainty about future development, as expressed through paragraph 35 of PPS 1, they are not the only factor to be considered. Other material considerations could include a change in circumstances since the zoning was first proposed, or a use that is complementary to the main zoning.

1.3.53 The explanatory text towards the end of paragraph 1.4.1 of SET 2 (p16 Vol.1.)

acknowledges that unidentified requirements may come forward and that such matters will have to be considered when planning applications are assessed. We do not regard this acknowledgement that other material considerations have to be taken into account is a let-out clause that developers could exploit. It is, quite appropriately, recognition of the legislative requirements of Article 25(1) of the Planning Order.

1.3.54 In conclusion we do not accept that Policy SET 2 is too inflexible or that it

should be amended or deleted, other than by the omission of the word ‘only’.

Objections to Key Site Requirements 1.3.55 Paragraph 39 of PPS 1 clarifies that “Development plans will set out the main

planning requirements which developers will be expected to meet in respect of particular zoned sites”. This is translated into Policy SET 2 by what are termed as Key Site Requirements (KSRs), setting out requirements on zoned sites on a site by site basis in Volume 2 of the plan. Varying concerns were expressed about KSRs ranging from arguments that they are unnecessary, unduly restrictive and duplicate regional policy already in place, to those claiming that they are not restrictive enough or do not provide design guidance of appropriate detail.

1.3.56 A common theme throughout the examination process has been the impact of

delay on the policies and proposals of the plan. A number of regional policies have been amended or introduced since the draft plan was published and it is incumbent on the Department to ensure that the adopted plan takes account of those changes in respect of KSRs. There is no necessity for KSRs to require compliance with the requirements of regional planning documents or for KSRs to incorporate unnecessary duplication of regional policy.

1.3.57 As paragraph 39 of PPS 1 emphasises, it is the ‘main’ planning requirements

that should be set out in KSRs and various examples of the sort of requirements that should be set out are provided in the remainder of paragraph 39. It goes without saying that KSRs should be applied on a site by site basis, taking account of local circumstances and highlighting specific site constraints. KSRs should not be used to impose unnecessary restrictions or overly detailed stipulations. In that respect we do not agree with Coleraine Borough Council that KSRs should be used to impose stricter and more detailed design requirements on housing sites. There should be scope for different design solutions for any given site and we are satisfied that regional policy, for example in PPS 7 and the PPS 7 Addenda, provide an appropriate context in which to address such matters. KSRs should not read like planning conditions attached to every site without any thought as to whether they are actually key to the development of the individual site or not. Their primary role should be to alert developers to site constraints they may not otherwise be aware of.



1.3.58 We do not agree with the criticism that the incorporation of housing density ranges in KSRs precludes good or carefully thought out designs. This and other concerns about the implications of non-compliance with a particular KSR have to be balanced against the requirement in Article 25 of the Planning Order to take account of all material considerations in assessing planning applications. We are satisfied that this legislative requirement provides an appropriate flexibility and see little to be gained from using the term Key Site Considerations as opposed to Key Site Requirements. Nor are we persuaded that there is any need to alter the phrase in the policy headnote from “in accordance with the Key Site Requirements..” to “..in general conformity with the Key Site Requirements..” The purpose of Key Site Requirements (KSRs) is to alert developers to the matters to be addressed in developing sites and there has to be a measure of certainty in this respect. If KSRs are too open ended or vague they will serve little useful planning purpose.

1.3.59 Objectors had the opportunity to highlight concerns about KSRs on individual

sites in the Stage 2 examination process. Where such concerns were followed through we have carefully assessed them and recommended accordingly. We cannot though comment on general or unsubstantiated objections to individual KSRs where these were not pursued at Stage 2. Nevertheless we recommend the Department should reassess the use of KSRs across all sites within the Plan to ensure that there is a consistency of approach.

Objections to the reduction of settlement limits across the plan area 1.3.60 Paragraph 1.4.5 confirms that the draft plan proposes to reduce the

development limit in some settlements relative to the previous Area Plans. The replacement of one area plan by another necessarily entails re-assessing the validity of the unimplemented provisions of the former plan in the light of evolving circumstances. We do not, therefore, find this approach to be unacceptable or out of line with regional planning policy, as espoused by the RDS 2025 and the successor RDS 2035. Adherence to previous development limits could, in some cases, prevent the change of direction sought by the regional planning policies from being realised.

1.3.61 A number of objections were advanced against this policy in respect of

arguments seeking to justify the inclusion of land within various settlement limits. Such site specific arguments are considered in the settlement section of our report. We accept, as pointed out by various objectors, that some settlement limits may need to be adjusted and updated to take account of planning permissions granted post publication of the draft plan. This is a matter for the Department to assess when it adopts the plan.

Objections to the exclusion of peripheral caravan sites from settlement limits

1.3.62 As part of the rationalisation of some of the development limits in the NEAP

2002 paragraph 1.4.5 proposes the exclusion of a number of peripheral caravan parks from settlement limits. Objectors have expressed concern that this fails to allow for the potential of these previously developed lands for housing or other purposes and does not allow for changes in the holiday and



housing markets. The issue of housing allocations will be considered in more detail under Policy HOU 1. Clearly, though, the inclusion of a site within a settlement limit, even if unzoned, would be an important factor favouring redevelopment and we don’t see how safeguards could realistically be put in place in this context to protect existing tourism uses. We agree with the Department that allowing these extensive caravan parks to remain within settlement limits opens up the potential for large areas of unplanned peripheral housing. This would be incompatible and at variance with the stated emphasis in the RDS 2025 (page 52) and in the successor RDS 2035 (page 41) in seeking compact urban forms. We endorse the draft plan approach in placing large peripheral caravan parks outside settlement limits.

Objections to Paragraph 1.5.3 of Policy SET 2

1.3.63 Several objectors expressed concern that the wording in paragraph 1.5.3 that

“it is presently Government policy that developers should bear the cost of works required to facilitate their development proposals” could result in developers bearing the cost of latent deficiencies in existing infrastructure. The draft plan is however merely stating government policy and one that is embodied in paragraph 61 of PPS 1. We are not persuaded that there is any useful benefit in inserting the word ‘directly’ before the word ‘required’ in the sentence in question. To our mind it is clear that any costs to developers are only those that are required to enable their development to proceed.


We recommend that:

The word ‘only’ is removed from the headnote of Policy SET 2;. The Department should re-assess the use of KSRs in the Plan to

ensure that: Only ‘Key’ factors that are critical to the development of a site are

identified; There is no unnecessary duplication of regional planning policy; Inappropriate or unnecessary KSRs are removed.

Objections to Policy SET 3: Proposals on Development Opportunity Sites 1.3.64 Paragraph 37 of PPS 1 indicates that a development plan can identify

Development Opportunity Sites (DOS). It does not though set out specific guidance on the purpose or content of DOS. The draft plan identifies a number of DOS in the towns of Ballymoney, Coleraine and Limavady and paragraph 1.6.1 (p18 Vol 1) explains that these are large, vacant underused sites where a range of uses would be acceptable, including for residential purposes. We note that in addressing the concerns of an objector the Department has indicated that residential use on such sites should not be counted as contributing towards the plan’s housing allocation but, rather, should be considered as windfall.



1.3.65 A number of objectors expressed concern that the wording of SET 3 is too rigid

or prescriptive and various suggestions were made to amend its wording. There was agreement with the Department’s suggestion at the EIP that the use of the word ‘only’ in the policy headnote should be removed. One objector, however, requested that the policy be removed altogether and we see merit in that suggestion. DOS are a particular type of land use zoning and in that respect fall naturally within the definition of SET 2, which deals with development within settlement development limits. As paragraph 1.6.1 (p18 Vol 1) sets out, specific guidance on each DOS is contained in the relevant section of the Settlement Section of the Plan in the form of KSRs. Specific concerns about the definition and extent of individual DOS, including their suitability for redevelopment and possible impact on town centre car parking, will be considered in stage 2 of our report. So likewise will objections to KSRs attached to individual sites.

1.3.66 Since we find the wording of policy headnote SET 3 itself is superfluous and not

serving any useful purpose we recommend that it be removed from the plan. 1.3.67 Paragraph 1.7.1 (P19 of Vol 1 of the draft plan) identifies what are termed as

‘Target Sites’. The text describes these as smaller derelict and gap sites in the main town centres (Ballymoney, Coleraine, Limavady and Ballycastle). While the boundaries of these sites are shown on the town centre plans for each of the four main towns the sites are not zoned and no specific guidance is provided as to how they might be best developed. Given the absence of more detailed guidance and the acknowledgement that they are only identified ‘for information purposes’ we are somewhat at a loss to understand what their strategic role is. We consider that the reference to ‘Target Sites’ in the text and the notation on the settlement plans is only likely to lead to confusion and a lack of certainty. It does not therefore meet the requirements of paragraph 35 of PPS 1. Accordingly we support the objections expressed on behalf of Ballymoney and Limavady Borough Councils, seeking to delete this element of Policy SET 3.


We recommend that:

The Policy headnote of SET 3 is removed from the plan and that the

text of paragraph 1.6.1 relating to Development Opportunity Sites be incorporated within that accompanying Policy SET 2;

The term ‘Target Sites’ is deleted from the plan and that all notations

on the settlement maps are likewise removed.



Objections to Policy SET 4: Improving the Quality of New Non-Residential Development

1.3.68 The majority of objectors to SET 4 are in general agreement that the policy is

too restrictive and too inflexible. The general consensus is that the policy is unnecessary and that the design issues and principles that it is seeking to cover are already incorporated in published regional planning policies.

1.3.69 Article 4 (1) of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 assigns the function of making

development plans to the Department and in doing so provides a wide discretion as to what may be included in such plans. Notwithstanding this discretion it is an established planning principle that, unless there is a local element that needs to be clarified, there is no need to reiterate regional policy in a development plan. It can though be appropriate for a plan to include urban design policies that comply with regional policy but which have been tailored to the particular local circumstances of the area.

1.3.70 Annex 3 of PPS 1 indicates that where development plans set out design

policies such policies will be based on a proper assessment of the character of the surrounding built and natural environment and will take account of the defining characteristics of each local area. This would suggest that design policies incorporated in a development plan will normally have a locational aspect to them. Policy SET 4 is, however, a generic policy. It does not seek compliance with urban design criteria set out in the District proposals, nor is it confined to particular land zonings. It is a standalone policy that the Department is seeking to apply universally across the plan area. Given that paragraphs 15-22 of PPS 1 set out at some length the Department’s approach to design considerations for all development we fail to see what role or purpose this policy provides. As objectors highlighted, the principles of high quality design are applicable to all areas of Northern Ireland and are not just restricted to the area encompassed by the draft plan. If the Department perceives that there is a gap in regional policy in respect of design guidance for new non-residential development then there are mechanisms to address that. A development plan dealing with a particular region is not the way to do so.

1.3.71 The Department sought to address some of the concerns of the objectors by

suggesting amendments to the wording of the policy headnote. It was suggested that the sentence introducing the qualifying criteria and worded “proposals for new development will only be approved if the following criteria are met” should be replaced by one reading “in assessing whether quality urban design has been achieved consideration will be given to:”. Since the policy is, in our view, fundamentally flawed, we do not see any benefit from this revision or other qualifying textual amendments suggested by objectors.


We recommend that: Policy SET 4 is omitted from the Plan.



1.4. HOUSING

Objections to the Housing Strategy and HOU 1: Housing Distribution Background 1.4.1 Housing represents the greatest pressure on land resources in the plan area.

Policy HOU 1, dealing with housing allocation and housing distribution, was therefore one of the most disputed topics at the EIP. While debate primarily focussed on how many housing units are required to meet the needs of the plan area, and where and in what form they should be provided, objectors also argued that consideration should be given to extending the time period covered by the plan to compensate for delay in its progression to adoption. It is against this general background that our assessment of the housing strategy and proposals is made.

Regional Policy Context 1.4.2 Following publication of the RDS 2025 in September 2001, the 2003 Planning

Amendment Order 2003 placed a statutory requirement on development plans to be in ‘general conformity’ with the RDS. The draft plan was prepared in the context of this requirement and the policy framework set out in the RDS 2025. In March 2012, just prior to the close of the EIP, the RDS 2035 replaced the RDS 2025. As the most recent expression of regional and spatial planning strategy we must take account of the RDS 2035 in assessing the draft plan and in formulating our recommendations on it. Where there are significant differences between the documents these will be highlighted in our report. When responsibility for the preparation of local development plans and development schemes transfers to local councils Article 8 (5) (a) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that the council must take account of the regional development strategy. However, for the purposes of the current plan the requirement for it to be in general conformity with the RDS remains in place.

1.4.3 The RDS 2035 states on page 11 that it is not a fixed blueprint or master plan

but rather it is a ‘framework’ which provides the strategic context for where development should happen. The language used here is very similar to that found in the RDS 2025. Although the RDS 2035 is more succinct than the 2025 document its general thrust is similar in terms of the growth strategy it promotes across the regions and the hierarchy of settlements. The RDS 2025 (p110) introduced the concept of Housing Growth Indicators (HGIs) to influence future housing distribution and to secure a balance between the Belfast Metropolitan Area (BMA) and its hinterland, and the rest of the Region, as well as giving guidance at the local level. HGIs are retained in the RDS 2035 as presented in Table B2 (p101). The same HGIs were available to the parties during the EIP as represented in Diagram 5.2 (p111) of the RDS 2025 10 Year Review Consultation Document published in January 2011. The objective of achieving a balance between the BMA and the rest of the Region remains in place.

1.4.4 The purpose of setting HGIs for each District Council area was and remains to

guide those preparing development plans. Previous plan inquiries post the



RDS 2025 have established that while development plans should “take account” of the HGIs there is a degree of flexibility in them rather than a need for rigid adherence to the figures. Thus they are not intended to be a target to be achieved nor a fixed ceiling. Nevertheless the clear intention was, and remains, that the HGI figures would set out the broad extent of housing to be provided in each District in line with the Spatial Framework. It is also clear that the Indicators are intended to cover both urban and rural housing.

1.4.5 Given that responsibility for regional planning rests with DRD and that the

concept of growth indicators for housing is enshrined in the RDS, the level of HGIs is not a matter for the development plan process to determine. What is open to debate though, and the matter for us to consider, is whether the plan has allocated sufficient land to accommodate the identified HGI and has done so in the right locations, providing opportunity and choice.

1.4.6 When the draft plan was published the HGI for the four districts in the plan area

comprised a combined total of 13,445 housing units, a figure derived from the RDS in 2001 with a pro rata addition of one year to allow for the draft plan period extending to 2016. Following public examination, province-wide revised and uplifted HGIs were published by DRD on 1 June 2008. In March 2011 the DOE provided a Housing Update Paper to take account of the revised HGI’s for the four districts. The revised and uplifted HGI for the plan area was 18,743 – a 39% increase in the original HGI figure identified in the plan. The breakdown of the figures at district level in respect of the original HGIs and the revised and updated 2008 HGIs is set down in table 1 below.

Table 1

District 2001 RDS

HGI with Pro-Rata Increase to cover plan period to 2016

Revised HGI 2008 with Pro-Rata Increase to cover plan period to 2016

Increase in HGI as result of 2008 uplift (% in brackets)

Average no. of housing units required per annum (based on HGI uplift)

Ballymoney 2,540 4,025 1,485 (+58%) 224 Coleraine 6,141 8,047 1,906 (+31%) 447 Limavady 3,282 4,553 1,271 (+39%) 253 Moyle 1,482 2,118 636 (+43%) 118 Total 13,445 18,743 5,298 (+39%) 1,041

1.4.7 As stated earlier, the level of HGIs is not a matter for the development plan

process to determine. We note that when the RDS 2035 was launched in March 2012 the HGI figures for all four districts within the plan area, as set out in Table B2 (p101), are lower than those identified in the 2008 DRD Uplift. There is a common overlapping period of 7 years between 2008 and 2015 for the respective HGIs. Account also has to be taken of the fact that the plan period extends by an additional year to include 2016. We calculate that adopting the HGI figures set out in the RDS 2035 for the overlapping period between 2008 and 2016 would reduce the HGI for the plan area by some 750 units. This would leave the HGI for the plan area at around 18,000 rather than the 18,743 identified in the Department’s 2011 March Housing Update paper.



1.4.8 The overall difference in figures is not significant, particularly so if spread across the four districts and within the settlement tiers. As previously stated, the HGIs are indicators rather than figures set in stone. They are not specific targets that must be met. The evidence provided by the Department and encapsulated in the March 2011 Housing Update Paper focuses on the 2008 uplifted figures. The responses and counter arguments by parties at the EIP were likewise based on that information. Given that the Department is satisfied that the draft plan can accommodate and generally exceed the 2008 uplifted HGIs we are satisfied that our analysis should be based on those figures rather than on a lower figure, as represented in the RDS 2035. We are reinforced in this opinion in the knowledge that there is an absence of objections arguing either that the housing allocation is too high or that housing land should be removed from settlement limits because of an overprovision.

1.4.9 Allocation HOU 1 in the draft plan made provision for 432.3 hectares (phases 1

and 2 combined) of land zoned in the towns and villages of the plan area for housing purposes. The estimated output from the quantum of this zoned land is only one element in accommodating the projected HGI requirement. PPS 12 sets out in detail a 7 stage process for allocating housing land in development plans. As PPS 12 makes clear, to complete the calculation of the amount of new housing required in a development plan account has to be taken of housing already constructed, existing housing approvals not yet constructed and housing where proposals have a reasonable expectation of approval. Allowance also has to be made for windfall housing within the urban footprint, windfall being housing yield obtained from development not specifically planned for through land use zonings or planning commitments at any given time.

1.4.10 The DOE Update Paper provides house completion figures from the 1st of

January 1999 up to the start of August 2010. Table 2 in the Update paper indicates that 13,436 units were completed within that particular timeframe, a figure almost identical to the original 2001 HGI for the whole of the plan period (13,445). This would leave a balance of approximately 5,307 units to be provided over the remainder of the plan period based on the 2008 updated figures. Table 2 in the Update Paper also demonstrates that if account is taken of committed planning approvals on zoned sites at 31 March 2011 and of permissions granted on appeal for sites outside draft plan development limits the HGI figure at the end of the plan period would be exceeded by over 1700 units. The Department’s updated assessment of housing provision until the end of the plan period then goes on to suggest that not only would the revised HGI figures be easily achieved within each of the four districts but that there would be a potential housing surplus of some 9,000 housing units across the plan area, equating to an overprovision of some 48%. At district level this breaks down into an overprovision of 47.5% in Ballymoney, 58.9% in Coleraine, 23% in

Limavady and 61.1% in Moyle. It goes without saying that the level of overprovision would be even higher if the HGI figures in the RDS 2035 were taken into account.

1.4.11 Notwithstanding the Department’s evidence that the anticipated housing

provision would easily exceed the HGI, a considerable body of objectors continued to argue that the quantum of housing provision was inadequate and that further housing allocations were required. In the ensuing paragraphs we will consider both the implications and accuracy of the figures provided by the



Department, examining the breakdown of the plan figures within each of the respective districts and the implications for individual settlements within them. Before doing so, though, there are a number of other concerns that could influence the recommended housing figures and which, consequently, require our consideration.

The Plan Timescale

1.4.12 A recurring criticism of the draft plan has been its slow progress towards

adoption, having first been published in May 2005. The sense of frustration felt by objectors is understandable but it is not our role to examine or explain why that has been the case. With a projected end date of 2016 the reality is that a substantial proportion of the plan period will have passed before the plan is adopted. The earliest date for its adoption is realistically sometime in 2014. However, simply extending the time period covered by the plan is not a readily available option, as many objectors would seem to believe. While paragraph 45 of PPS 1 recognises and permits a plan to be a material consideration beyond its end date, there is no provision in legislation for the extension of a plan period. All of the statutory procedures, including the public notices made in pursuance of Article 5 of the Planning (NI) Order 1991, have established the plan period for NAP as being 2005-2016. Since there is no statutory basis for extending the plan period we cannot recommend such a course of action.

1.4.13 The arguments presented to support an extension of the plan’s timeframe are

not new and the Commission’s position on this is made clear in its reports on Magherafelt Area Plan (MAP) and in Banbridge Newry and Mourne Area Plan (BNMAP). We continue to be opposed for the same reasons. While the Commission recommended an increase of five years supply for housing land within the Lisburn Area Plan 2001 (LAP) the circumstances for doing so are not directly comparable with those pertaining in the draft plan. The plan period of the LAP had been curtailed to allow a first phase of development until a successor plan could be produced in line with regional policy. It was clear that LAP’s expiry date was unlikely to extend significantly beyond its date of adoption, with the replacement plan (the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan) not programmed to be in place for a further 3-4 years. The plan period of LAP itself was not, however, extended. Rather, as an interim measure, provision was made for an additional 5 years of housing supply. Similarly, the release of the ‘Whitelands’ in the Belfast Urban Area Plan was, essentially a phasing mechanism to meet an identified shortage in housing land. As we have already commented, the evidence provided in the Update Paper does not point to a potential shortage of housing land over the plan period. We see no need to make further provision based on arguments drawing comparison with LAP and the Whitelands.

1.4.14 One objector alleged that the principle of extending the allocation period some

three years beyond the end date of a plan was accepted by the Department at the inquiries into BMAP, MAP and BNMAP. Regardless of the Department’s stated position during the MAP and BNMAP EIPs the PAC did not accept that the allocation period in those plans should be extended and the adopted plans did not extend beyond their stated end date. MAP and BNMAP were both adopted before their end date and the likelihood is that BMAP will also be



adopted before its end date. We have no reason, at this stage, to suppose that NAP will also not be adopted before its end date.

1.4.15 One objector pointed out that the Department for Communities and Local

Government’s advice in England is to have a five-year supply of deliverable sites. Responsibility for planning matters in Northern Ireland rests with the Northern Ireland Assembly and it is PPS 12 that sets regional housing policy for Northern Ireland. PPS 12 replaced the PSRNI requirement that development plans should make provision for an adequate and continuous supply and choice of housing land and contains no specific requirement to make provision beyond the plan period. Contrary to the views of various objectors it is not the function of this plan to make provision for an additional three, five or other extended period of supply beyond the plan period. The ‘plan, monitor and manage’ mechanism should alert the Department to the need for review if there is any likelihood of a land shortage.

1.4.16 We accept that adoption of the plan close to its end date has implications for

the timing of development proposals that are reliant on plan adoption, namely land that is subject to objection and whose release before adoption could be seen as premature and prejudicial to the plan process. The plan does not, however, just ‘bite’ at adoption stage. Decisions have already been made on the basis of the draft plan and can continue to be made before final adoption. As the Joint Ministerial Statement of 31st January 2005, on Development Plans and Implementation of the Regional Development Strategy, makes clear in paragraph 23, refusal on grounds of prematurity will only be justified in particular circumstances. Almost all of the proposed draft plan housing zonings in the main and other towns are either repeat zonings of those established in the extant NEAP 2002 or involve land that was previously inside the settlement limits in NEAP. The absence of objections seeking the removal of these proposed housing zonings opens the way for planning applications on such land to be approved in advance of plan adoption. From the evidence presented to us and from our own observations it is clear that development has already commenced on a number of such sites.

1.4.17 The Housing Update Paper also draws attention to the fact that across the plan

area there are a number of sites that were within settlement limits in the extant plans and which, while proposed for exclusion in the draft plan, have been granted approval on appeal. As at 31 March 2011 this accounted for a potential 941 units. The Department’s withdrawal of Policy HOU 2 on phasing prior to the EIP allows for the potential development of Phase 2 land in Ballymoney, Coleraine and Limavady, prior to plan adoption. We note from the Housing Update Paper that development of the Phase 2 land in Ballymoney is already under way, following an approval on appeal. The Housing Update Paper also highlights that the 19 ha of Phase 2 land at Wattstown, Coleraine, has been granted outline permission. When the strategic EIP was conducted there was no planning permission in place for the land identified as phase 2 land in Limavady but, as the Department has highlighted, the development of that land is acceptable in principle. We would therefore suggest any absence of significant house building in recent times is related more to the pertaining unfavorable economic circumstances than it is to delays in the development plan process.



1.4.18 Notwithstanding that there is no specific requirement to make provision beyond the plan period we acknowledge the reasoning behind the argument that there should be sufficient capacity to cover the transitional period until a new plan can be put in place. We also recognise that significant changes to the planning system are in the more immediate offing with the transfer of planning powers to the new District Councils, including the passing over of plan preparation functions. The provision of additional housing land beyond the end date of the NAP plan period would only, however, be justified if there was substantiated evidence that the proposed housing allocation in the draft plan was inadequate.

1.4.19 An overprovision of some 48% above the HGI at the end of the plan period, as

suggested in the Department’s analysis, does not point towards a difficulty in housing land supply in the years immediately following the end date of the plan. An examination of the detailed housing completion figures provided by the Department for the period between January 1999 and August 2010 reinforces the point. House building was at a premium during this eleven and a half year period, with the result that the average annual house completion rate for the plan area during those years was 1160 units. Even if the annual house completion rate remained at a similar level from August 2010 until the end of 2016, which we consider highly unlikely, there would still be capacity for an additional 7.75 years of housing supply over and above that catered for in the plan, bearing in mind that there is provision for a surplus of some 9,000 units above the 2008 uplifted HGI.

1.4.20 Given the significant slowdown in the economy after 2008, particularly in the

house-building sector, it is extremely unlikely that housing completions after August 2010 will approach anything like the average rates achieved in the preceding 11 year period. The slowdown is already evident in the district house completion figures for 2008/09 and 2009/10 whereby the annual figure reduced to 494 in 2008/09 and continued to fall in 2009/10 to 417. Given that 13,436 units had been completed by the start of August 2010 the annual house completion rate would have to exceed 827 units per annum over the remaining six and a half years to even reach the 2016 HGI figure of 18,743. It is not unreasonable then to assume that at the end of the plan period there should be a more than adequate spare capacity and one which would easily cater for a lead-in period until a replacement plan is in place.

1.4.21 The purpose of the plan is to make provision for a level of housing development

that will accommodate the HGI. We are satisfied that it does so. We are also satisfied the remaining surplus housing provision identified in the Housing Update Paper will be able to cater well beyond the end of the plan period. However, before reaching a final conclusion on this latter point we wish to consider arguments presented by various objectors that the potential housing surplus identified by the Department is overly optimistic and does not take account of the changing economic climate post 2008.



The Likely Realization of the Projected Housing Surplus 1.4.22 There is no disputing that the economic downturn experienced in 2008 and

thereafter has had a significant impact on the construction industry in general. As objectors have highlighted, a number of house builders in the plan area are no longer in business due to financial difficulties. One of the consequences of this, we are told, is that there are sites scattered throughout the plan area that are now in the control of funding institutions, receivers and administrators.

1.4.23 We accept that the downturn in the economy has slowed down the release of

some building sites but while arguments were put to us in general on this point little specific information was provided to quantify the extent of the problem. We are not persuaded that the release of development land will be limited over the remainder of the plan period to such an extent as would warrant the release of new and additional green field sites, as argued for by the objectors. The slowdown in the economy has inevitably impacted on the rate of new house building taking place post 2008, but this has been the case regardless of land ownership. Releasing additional new land could in fact diminish the prospects of development proceeding on land that has been identified through the plan process as the most suited for development and which already has the benefit of previous or extant planning approvals.

1.4.24 Notwithstanding these extant or unimplemented approvals objectors also

expressed concern that many of these permissions involve higher density schemes such as apartments, town houses, student houses and second homes. We acknowledge that these forms of development have been prevalent in a number of settlements, especially so in the coastal areas. It may well be, as objectors have argued, that unimplemented schemes will have to be revised to take account of changing market trends and that this could result in lower density yields on some sites. Again the evidence placed before us on this matter is of a more general rather than a specific nature. The unchallenged evidence from the Department is that densities on schemes already implemented and in place, particularly in windfall schemes, have proved to be higher than the plan made provision for in the first place. One of the consequences of this is that more housing units have already been provided for in some of the settlements but on a lesser amount of land. It follows that there remains more undeveloped land within such settlements, thereby freeing up that land to meet needs reflective of the revised market circumstances, whether that be what some objectors refer to as traditional or family housing, or other forms of lower cost housing.

1.4.25 Whatever way you look at it, there is no sustainable basis or reasoning that

would justify supporting objections that are seeking to include additional areas of green field lands within the settlement limits of the plan area. The fact remains that approximately 72% of the revised 2008 HGI figure for the plan area was already built by the 1st of August 2010. The full realization of the HGI at the end of the plan period would require the building of just over 5,000 housing units. As of 31 March 2011 there are committed planning approvals on zoned sites for 5,827 units, 941 units have been allowed on sites on appeal that lie outside the draft plan limits and there are a further 3,836 units with approval on windfall sites. Combining these three sets of planning approvals alone gives a total potential of 10,604 units, some 5,000 plus in excess of the



HGI. This surplus does not even take account of the further 3,699 units that the Department believes are capable of being accommodated within urban capacity and urban fringe sites for which permissions have not yet been granted.

1.4.26 We conclude that the draft plan makes more than adequate provision for

housing in relation to the HGI. Indeed the level of potential housing growth above the HGI is at a point that would suggest that land should be de-zoned or removed from settlement limits. However, in the absence of objections suggesting such an action we are not in a position to recommend a closer alignment between the Plan provision and the HGI allocation.

Allocation and Distribution of Housing Land within the Plan Area 1.4.27 The RDS 2035 states (para 3.21 on p42) that the allocations of housing growth

to specific locations in a district is a matter for decision through the development plan process. This process, though, has to be set within the strategic guidance and requirements of the RDS. Regional Guidance RG 8 (p 40) emphasises the need to manage housing growth to achieve sustainable patterns of residential development. RG 8 also advocates the use of a broad evaluation framework (Table 3.2 on p 41) to assist judgements on the allocation of housing growth. The draft plan has followed such an approach, with paragraph 8.3 (p68/69) of Technical Supplement 1 on Population and Housing setting out a 15 step evaluation process utilised to allocate housing growth across the plan area.

1.4.28 Paragraph 3.21 of the RDS 2035 makes it clear that due weight in the

allocation process needs to be given to reinforcing the leading role of Hubs and the clusters of Hubs identified in the RDS. In line with the RDS the second objective of the draft plan, as set out on Page 9 of Volume 1, is to promote Coleraine and Limavady as main hubs and Ballymoney and Ballycastle as local hubs. In advocating the growth of hubs the RDS recognises that between 2001 and 2008 the 5.1% population increase in Northern Ireland was unevenly distributed across the settlement hierarchy, with the fastest rates of growth seen in villages, small settlements and in the open countryside. As the RDS recognises, judgements have to be made in allocating land for housing use to achieve a complementary urban/rural balance, yet one that allows the reinforcement of the role of Hubs and clusters of Hubs.

1.4.29 Table B3 in Appendix B of the RDS 2035 (p104) sets out the percentage of the

population that was resident in the principal town of each district within Northern Ireland in 1998 and 2008. The Northern Ireland average in 2008 was 37%. Of the four towns within the plan area only Coleraine was above the average with a figure of 43%. Limavady (37%) had the national average while Ballymoney (34%) and Ballycastle (32%) were below it. To strengthen their position at the top of the settlement hierarchy, each of the four district towns should at the very least maintain those percentage figures during the plan period. We note that the approach set out in Tables 7A-7D in Technical Supplement, and as reflected in the uplifted HGI figures provided in the March 2011 Housing Update Paper, is to target on average 46% of the district allocations to each of the 4 hubs within the plan area (slightly less in Ballycastle at 44%). The proportion of the allocation to the 4 hubs combined with a lower



proportion of allocation to the hamlets and open countryside is clearly intended to reflect and implement the thrust in the RDS for a top down approach in housing allocations across the settlement hierarchy.

1.4.30 The Department’s Housing Update Paper of March 2011 states that by March

2011 approximately 72% of the total revised HGI for the Northern Area was already completed. A pattern of the distribution of housing development across the plan area can therefore be detected for the first half of the plan period. When account is taken of committed dwellings on zoned land (including allowed appeal sites) the pattern becomes even more evident, bearing in mind that when these commitments are added to the units already completed the revised HGI figure is exceeded across the plan area by 1461 units (table 4 of March 2011 Update). Various trends can be deduced from Table 2 below, which sets out the number of units completed by 1st of August 2010, those committed and allowed on appeal at 31st March 2011 and the DOE estimated total provision at the end of the plan period when further allowance is made for remaining urban capacity, urban fringe and windfall approvals. The table also shows the proportion, in percentage terms, of housing given over to settlements and to the open countryside relative to the distribution proposed by the draft plan.



Table 2 Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6

Classification District 2008 uplift of HGI and % breakdown

Units complete at 1/8/10 and % ratio compared to Col 3 targets

Units complete plus committed & allowed on appeal at 31/3/11 & % ratio compared to Col 3 targets

DOE estimated total provision with % ratio compared to Col 3 targets

Hubs Ballymoney 1877 or 46.6% 1159 or 39.7% (-6.9%)

1606 or 35.8% (-10.8%)

45.3% (2832) (-1.3%)

Coleraine 3742 or 46.5% 1666 or 27.4% (-19.1%)

2613 or 28.7% (-17.8%)

37.9% (5040) (-8.6%)

Limavady 2094 or 46% 794 or 31.6% (-14.4%)

1160 or 30% (-14%)

36% (2069) (-10%)

Moyle 928 or 43.8% 745 or 38.8% (-5.0%)

925 or 33.8% (-10%)

40.5% (1452) (-3.3%)

Sub total Plan Area 8641 or 46.1% 4364 or 32.5% 6304 or 31.2% 11393 or 39.5% Towns Ballymoney N/A Coleraine 2703 or 33.6% 2684 or 44.1%

(+10.5%) 3897 or 42.8%

(+9.2%) 40.1% (5335)

(+6.5%) Limavady 519 or 11.4% 324 or 12.9%

(+1.5%) 487 or 12.6%

(+1.2%) 15% (863) (+3.6%)

Moyle 439 or 20.7% 327 or 17.1% (-3.6%)

475 or 17.4% (-3.3%)

17.2% (619) (-3.5%)

Sub total Plan Area 3661 or 19.5% 3335 or 24.8% 4859 or 24.0% 6817 or 23.6% Villages Ballymoney 890 or 22.1% 781 or 26.7%

(+4.6%) 1211 or 27%

(+2.3%) 27.5% (1721)

(+5.4%) Coleraine 563 or 7% 724 or 11.9%

(+4.9%) 875 or 9.6%

(+2.6%) 8.7% (1150)

(+1.7%) Limavady 961 or 21.1% 563 or 22.4%

(+1.3%) 797 or 20.6%

(-0.5%) 23.8% (1369)

(+2.7)

Moyle 230 or 10.9% 169 or 8.8% (-2.1%)

246 or 9% (-1.9%)

11.7% (421) (+0.8%)

Sub total Plan Area 2644or 14.1% 2237 or 16.6% 3129 or 15.5% 4661 or 16.1% Hamlets Ballymoney 182 or 4.5% 111 or 3.8%

(-0.7) 175 or 3.9%

(-0.6%) 3.2% (199)

(-1.3%) Coleraine 89 or 1.1% 48 or 0.8%

(-0.3) 148 or 1.6%

(+0.8%) 1.4% (191)

(+0.3%) Limavady 128 or 2.8% 114 or 4.5%

(+1.7) 202 or 5.2%

(+ 2.4%) 3.9% (226)

(+1.1%) Moyle 76 or 3.6% 92 or 4.8%

(+1.2) 162 or 5.9%

(+2.3%) 4.8% (171)

(+1.2%) Sub total Plan Area 475 or 2.5% 365 or 2.7% 687 or 3.4% 787 or 2,7% Countryside Ballymoney 1076 or 26.7% 871 or 29.8%

(+3.1%) 1500 or 33.4%

(+ 6.7%) 24% (1500)

(-2.7%) Coleraine 950 or 11.8% 960 or 15.8%

(+4.0) 1583 or 17.4%

(+5.6%) 11.9% (1583)

(+0.1%) Limavady 851 or 18.7% 719 or 28.6%

(+9.9%) 1217 or 31.5%

(+12.8%) 21.2 (1217)

(+2.5%) Moyle 445 or 21% 585 or 30.5%

(+9.5%) 925 or 33.9%

(+12.9%) 25.8% (925)

(+4.8%) Sub total Plan Area 3322 or 17.7% 3135 or 23.3% 5225 or 25.9% 5225 or 18.1% Total Ballymoney 4025 2922 4492 100% (6252) Coleraine 8047 6082 9116 100% (13299) Limavady 4553 2514 3863 100% (5744) Moyle 2118 1918 2733 100% (3588) Grand total Plan Area 18,743 13,436 20,204 28,883



Housing in the Countryside 1.4.31 What becomes evident from the table above is that during the first half of the

plan period the proportionate distribution of housing development across the settlement hierarchy did not match up with avowed plan strategy to focus almost half of the projected growth on the 4 hubs and to place less emphasis on development within settlements lower down the settlement hierarchy or in the open countryside. The number of new housing units in the open countryside is particularly striking. Some 3,135 rural houses were completed by August 2010, which is only 187 less dwellings than the total plan allocation for the whole of the plan period (3,322). In Coleraine and Moyle Districts rural house completions were already in excess of the plan allocations for those districts.

1.4.32 The issue of rural housing growth is further illustrated by the Housing Update

Paper, which indicates that in March 2011 there were an additional 2,090 rural sites with planning approval that had yet to be completed. If this figure is added to that of the units already completed by August 2010 (3,135) the surplus above the allocation allowed for in the plan would be in the order of 1,900 dwellings. Another indicator of what might happen over the plan period is the average building rate in the countryside between January 1999 and August 2010. This is indicated in Table 3 of the Update Paper as being 271 units per annum. If that rate was maintained from 2011 until the end of the plan period it could be anticipated that an additional 1626 dwellings could be constructed in the open countryside. When added to the 3,135 houses completed by August 2010 this would result in almost 4,800 houses in the open countryside, a figure that is still some 1400 units in excess of the plan’s rural housing allocation.

1.4.33 The Housing Update Paper acknowledges that the amount of rural

development within the plan area is moving in the opposite direction from the thrust of the plan and the RDS. Clearly the countryside component of the district allocations does not reflect the actual build rates that were achieved in the earlier years of the plan period or the number of houses completed up until August 2010. The reality is that while the development plan can influence the extent, nature and form of urban expansion it has much less influence over development in the rural area, which is largely governed by regional policy.

1.4.34 Notwithstanding the trends evident above, it would be unrealistic to expect that

the historic rate of take up in the open countryside in the first half of the plan period will continue through the remainder of it. The economy was at its most buoyant level during the early years of the plan period. Added to that there was a very significant upsurge in applications for rural dwellings in the period leading up to and post 16 March 2006, when the Department first announced a change in policy approach for the rural area, in the guise of draft PPS 14. Not all of the rural approvals granted before or during the transition period between the introduction of draft PPS 14 and the final version of PPS 21 in June 2010 are likely to be implemented. Where approvals have subsequently lapsed both they and new proposals will have to be assessed against the policy provisions of PPS 21.



1.4.35 While it is difficult to accurately predict the likely effects of PPS 21 during the remainder of the plan period it is reasonable to assume that the rate of rural approvals post 2010 is likely to be much lower than previously experienced given that it is a more restrictive policy than previously applied in many parts of the plan area. We do not therefore accept the wildly optimistic figures of some objectors in respect of likely rural house completions over the plan period. Given the various mitigating factors we have identified we consider it more appropriate to allow for a construction rate in the countryside over the remainder of the plan period that is more akin to half that experienced heretofore. Even at such a reduced level (135 houses per annum) there is still the potential for close on 4,000 dwellings to be built in the countryside over the plan period, some 700 more than the allocation allowed for in the draft plan. It is worth emphasising again that the development plan has very limited influence over development in the rural area. The rural allocation in the plan does not identify the sites for houses to be built in the countryside. In that context it would be unwise to place too much emphasis on the housing allocation made in the draft plan for the countryside.

Housing in Hamlets and Villages 1.4.36 It is evident from the Department’s March 2011 Housing Update Paper that

during the first half of the plan period a substantial proportion of the overall development that occurred within the settlements of the plan area took place within the lowest tiers of the hierarchy, namely the villages and hamlets. As with development in the open countryside this trend is at variance with the thrust of the RDS 2035 and the aims and objectives of the plan whereby the main focus and concentration should be on the four hubs. Land is not specifically zoned for housing within the hamlets yet when account is taken of houses built by 1st August 2010 and of committed approvals by March 2011 it is only in Ballymoney district, and marginally so, that the housing allocation for hamlets is not already exceeded. Given the scope for further development within the defined settlement limits of hamlets over the remainder of the plan period we see no justification for extending the limits of such settlements.

1.4.37 The amount of development that had taken place by the start of August 2010 in

a number of villages across the plan area is particularly striking and especially so in the villages of Articlave, Castlerock, Castleroe and Portballintrae in Coleraine district. In all four villages the housing allocation has already been exceeded by some degree and could potentially be doubled by the end of the plan period. Arguments from objectors seeking additional allocations in these villages are premised largely on past trends and perceived preferences. While past completion rates may provide an historical insight PPS 12 does not support such a methodology. The strategic direction of the RDS is based on sustainability and balance, both regionally and within Districts. It is essentially directive in nature looking forward rather than back and it establishes that ‘plan, monitor and manage’ is to form the basis of forward planning.

1.4.38 As in Coleraine, the Ballymoney villages of Ballybogey, Balnamore and

Loughguile all experienced significant development levels in the early years of the plan period. In Limavady district the villages of Drumsurn and Feeny had already hit their plan allocation by 2010, as did Ballyvoy in Moyle district. There is therefore no need to make additional provision for these villages



beyond what is proposed in the draft Plan. In almost all of the remaining villages within the plan area the Department has demonstrated that there is a potential housing surplus above the plan allocation at the end of the plan period. Consequently there is no justification to increase the allocations for those villages.

1.4.39 When account is taken of all committed and potential sites over the plan period

the only villages in which there is a potential shortfall measured against the plan allocations are Cloghmills in Ballymoney, Bellarena in Limavady and Waterfoot in Moyle district. These shortfalls are marginal in numerical terms and it has to be remembered that the plan allocations are indicators and not targets that must be rigidly met.

1.4.40 Bellarena is one of the few settlements where development levels between

1999 and 2010 have been very low (4 completions). There is no justification or basis for allocating additional land in Bellarena. Waterfoot is a small coastal village that has a number of physical planning constraints limiting its potential for expansion, not least of which are its sensitive coastal setting within the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB. The coastal floodplain and the Glenariff River corridor and associated floodplain provide further significant constraints. These matters will be given further consideration in the second stage of our report but given Waterfoot’s position within the settlement hierarchy and the general overprovision of housing within Moyle district we see no basis for supporting the allocation of additional land beyond the limits proposed in the draft plan.

1.4.41 Cloghmills has the largest housing allocation of the villages identified in

Ballymoney district. Its location in the southern extremity of Ballymoney Borough and proximity to the A26 makes it attractive for those seeking to commute to the Greater Belfast Area, yet remain within the plan area. Given the generous overprovision of housing land in other villages across Ballymoney district we agree with the Department that the allocation for Clogh Mills is appropriate. We note, however, that the Department indicated at the strategic stage a willingness to consider site specific arguments for some modest extensions of the settlement limits and we will address such arguments in our district reports.

1.4.42 The RDS 2035, like its predecessor document, recognises that its Spatial

Framework and Strategic Guidelines, is a long-term policy direction. Imbalances cannot therefore be fully addressed until previous planning commitments have been worked through. There is, however, no requirement to make further land available for development under the plan, monitor and manage approach when the clear focus is on settlements at the top of the hierarchy. It would be clearly inappropriate to make further allocations or extend the development limits of villages and hamlets where there are significant outstanding commitments or the potential for additional development within those limits. Accordingly, additional land on the edges of settlements within these lower tiers will only be recommended for inclusion where we are satisfied that there are compelling planning reasons, such as social housing need, limited rounding-off, or other factors that would justify an exception being made. Overall though we see no basis for supporting the numerous objections that the draft Plan contains an insufficient allocation for the lower tier settlements.



Housing in Towns 1.4.43 It is clear from the Housing Update paper that significant housing development

took place in some of the towns within the plan area in the period from 1999 to August 2010. Bushmills had already reached its plan allocation by August 2010, a pattern also evident in the coastal settlements of Portrush and Portstewart. Given the level of committed sites, windfall approvals and urban capacity sites in Portrush, Portstewart and Bushmills it is clear that all of these towns have the potential to effectively double their housing allocations over the plan period. There is no requirement under the RDS to provide for a continuous supply of land in all settlements and past trends do not justify an additional allocation in these particular settlements. While we consider that no further growth should be planned for at a strategic level, small individual objection sites may be considered suitable in these settlements but only where there is an identified social housing need, limited rounding-off or other planning factors that would justify an exception being made. Such site specific arguments will be considered in part 2 of the report.

1.4.44 Other towns within the plan area, such as Garvagh and Kilrea in Coleraine

district, Dungiven in Limavady and Cushendall in Moyle have experienced house building rates that are more commensurate with their plan allocation for what is effectively the first half of the plan period. Most of these towns have more than sufficient land to enable them to exceed their allocation by the end of the plan period. The slowdown in the economy is likely to reduce the scale of development in the second half of the plan. Accordingly there is no justification for adding lands to any of the towns other than in response to specific and identified social housing needs, or compelling physical planning reasons.

1.4.45 Table 20 in the 2011 Housing Update Paper indicates that Cushendall could

have a notional deficit of 25 dwellings below its allocation at the end of the plan period. As outlined above Cushendall has not experienced the same level of growth as other coastal settlements within the first half of the plan period and given the downturn in the economy we agree with the Department that it is most unlikely that there will be a shortfall of housing provision at the end of the plan period. However, we note the Department’s acknowledgement that the accommodation of social housing is an issue within this settlement. We will consider this matter further in stage two of our report.

1.4.46 The Department has already conceded that Ballykelly should be designated

as a town within the settlement hierarchy rather than a village. On that basis there is an argument for reconsidering the amount of housing land allocated to it in the draft plan. However, what cannot be ignored is that since the plan was drafted some 510 of the houses that were previously the sole preserve of the military base at Ballykelly, have been released onto the open market. This housing, which is centred at Walworth, is situated very close to the western limits of Ballykelly. In the absence of any objection seeking to include this land within the settlement limits of Ballykelly we are not in a position to recommend such an action. We cannot though ignore the implications of the release of such a significant number of housing units. Ballykelly already has a plan allocation equivalent to that of Dungiven, the other town within the district. Ballykelly is also within 5 km of the Hub of Limavady and given this proximity



we see no basis to support those objections seeking a further housing allocation for it.

Hubs 1.4.47 A critical element of the Spatial Framework in the RDS 2035 is the need to

reinforce the leading role of what are defined as the Hubs and the clusters of hubs. As we have already noted, the plan strategy also seeks to promote and provide for the largest scale of development in the main hubs of Coleraine and Limavady, with the hubs of Ballymoney and Ballycastle supporting and complementing this growth. PPS 12 makes it clear that in considering housing allocations and distribution account should be taken of the number of units built from 1st January 1999 as well as existing approvals not yet constructed, of urban capacity studies, windfall housing and social housing need. Account also has to be taken of urban fringe sites and those allowed outside settlement limits on appeal. The information provided in the 2011 Housing Update Paper indicates that at the end of the plan period the housing allocation for the four hubs of 8641 could be met and exceeded by 32% (an over provision of 2752 units). There are, however, differences between each of the settlements and these are examined below.

1.4.48 Relative to its housing allocation and to the performance of other settlements

tiers within the district, Coleraine did not have the number of units completed by August 2010 that might have been anticipated, given its intended pre-eminent role as the main settlement in the plan area. The extent of housing development that took place in the nearby towns of Portrush and Portstewart in the first decade of the new millennium, as noted above, undoubtedly impacted on the performance of Coleraine during that period. The combined number of houses built in Portrush and Portstewart by that date was 2445 compared to the 1666 units built in Coleraine. However, when account is taken of committed planning approvals on zoned sites and of windfall approvals at 31 March 2011 it is evident that Coleraine would only be less than 100 units below its allocation for the whole of the plan period. This of course assumes that all of those approvals would be implemented. With the slowdown in the economy that is now much less likely. However, the potential for further development within the settlement limit remains and added to this there is scope to develop sizeable areas of zoned and unzoned land not yet committed. Phasing has also been removed from the plan, freeing up some 19 ha of housing land at Wattstown (CEH 66).

1.4.49 The Department estimates that in Coleraine there is a potential housing surplus

of 1000 units over and above the plan allocation, when account is taken of all potential development land. We are not persuaded, therefore, that there is a need to allocate additional houses or land in Coleraine. To do so, as suggested by some objectors would simply decrease the tension between supply and demand. It is noted that some 83% of the house completions in Coleraine by August 2010 were located within the existing built-up area or Urban Footprint. This is very much in line with the thrust of regional planning policy to achieve a more compact and sustainable urban form. Allocating additional Greenfield sites would make the recycling of previously developed lands much less likely. We therefore support the plan strategy to remove from the settlement limits some of the peripheral undeveloped lands that were inside



the limits defined by NEAP 2002. We conclude that there is sufficient land within the proposed limits of Coleraine to enable it to fulfil its role as a main Hub.

1.4.50 Table 16 of the March 2011 Housing Update Paper indicates that the total

housing provision for Limavady could fall slightly below (by 91 units) the housing allocation for the whole of the plan period (2094 units). Given its status as a main hub this might suggest, as argued by various objectors, that additional land should be allocated to Limavady to reinforce its status and counter balance the amount of development occurring in the lower tiers of the settlement hierarchy. There are, however, a number of factors that need to be taken into account before such a conclusion could be reached. First and foremost the physical setting of Limavady and the natural and built constraints related to that setting must be borne in mind. As the plan points out, the River Roe floodplain to the north and west, the Limavady By-Pass to the north and north-east and Castle River to the east provide physical impediments and natural barriers to the growth of the town in those directions. The distinctive and historic landscape of the Drenagh Estate to the NE also provides a natural definition between the urban form and the surrounding countryside. We agree, therefore with the Department that any outward expansion of the existing urban form should be on the southern margins.

1.4.51 The process for allocating housing land takes account of a number of factors,

as set out in PPS 12 and in the RDS. Past trends are but one consideration. It is, however, hard to ignore that of the four hubs within the plan area the town of Limavady had, by August 2010, achieved the lowest proportion of built development (794 units) measured against its housing allocation (2094). Even when account is taken of other committed approvals up to March 2011 (366 units) the combined total (1160) is just over half of the plan allocation. With an average building rate of just under 70 dwellings per annum between 1999 and 2010 there is clearly more than sufficient land allocated in the plan to accommodate the housing allocation. The slowdown in the economy further reinforces our assessment in this respect.

1.4.52 We note from the Housing Update paper that of the 794 units built in Limavady

by August 2010, only 54% were located within the existing built-up area or Urban Footprint. This falls short of the RDS and plan target of 60%. Although the Department has acknowledged that opportunities for redevelopment within the existing built-up area are not as numerous as in other plan settlements, allocating additional Greenfield sites, as sought by the objectors, would only make the recycling of previously developed lands much less likely. In any event, with the removal of phasing from the plan there is some 27 ha of undeveloped land available at the southern end of the town in LYH 21A, LYH 21B and LYH 22. Given past trends and the slowdown in the economy we are satisfied that there is sufficient land within the proposed limits of Limavady to enable it to fulfil its role as a main Hub.

1.4.53 The town of Ballymoney has more than adequate land within its proposed

limits to accommodate the housing allocation of 1877 units. Some 1159 units were already completed by August 2010 and when account is taken of committed units and those allowed on appeal the total is only 271 units short of the total housing allocation. While there was an average build rate of some



100 units per annum between 1999 and 2010 it is highly unlikely that this rate will be maintained over the remainder of the plan period. We note that only 8 units were completed in 2008/09 and 6 in 2009/10, indicating the degree of impact the slowdown in the economy has had after 2008.

1.4.54 Some 79% of the units constructed in Ballymoney by August 2010 were

situated within the existing built-up area or Urban Footprint. We note from the Department’s Housing Update that at March 2011 there are windfall approvals for a further 504 units. Added to this 92 dwellings have been approved on appeal on a site off Bann Road that was outside the draft plan while a further 221 dwellings can be constructed on BYH 42, which was previously identified as Phase 2 land and on which development has now commenced. Given the level of development yet to be fully implemented there is no basis or justification to allocate additional lands outside the settlement limits. Release of additional Greenfield lands, as sought by the objectors, would simply increase supply and at the same time undermine the RDS and plan objectives of achieving a compact and sustainable urban form. We conclude that sufficient land has been allocated to Ballymoney over the plan period.

1.4.55 The settlement limit for Ballycastle, somewhat like Ballymoney, is drawn in

such a way that the town has potential spare housing capacity to significantly exceed the plan housing allocation of 928 units. Some 80% of the housing allocation was already built by August 2010 (745 units). When allowance is made, in March 2011, for committed planning approvals, and those allowed on appeal outside the draft plan limit, the housing allocation would already be achieved. As is common with the other main settlements the annual construction rate fell very significantly after 2008 with only 9 units completed in 2008/9 and 3 units in 2009/10. It is extremely unlikely that the previous annual build rate of 64 units per annum will be achieved over the remainder of the plan period. Contrary to arguments presented by objectors there is no need to identify additional lands outside the draft plan limits to accommodate the housing allocation over the plan period.

Strategic Conclusions 1.4.56 The housing distribution proposed by the draft plan is broadly in line with the

Spatial Framework of the RDS and its emphasis on the importance of critical mass in the hubs and clusters of hubs and on developing compact urban forms, using land within the existing urban footprints. It is clear, though, that the quantum of housing that the plan is capable of accommodating within all tiers of the settlement hierarchy, with a few minor exceptions, exceeds that of the planned housing allocations. It is also clear that previous commitments and the generous nature of many of the settlement limits in the extant development plans have facilitated levels of development in the lower settlement tiers that are not reflective of the strategic emphasis on a top down approach to housing allocations. The matter is further compounded by the very high levels of completions and outstanding commitments within the rural areas right across the plan area. The reality is that imbalances in distribution cannot be fully addressed until previous planning commitments have been worked through and the effects of PPS 21 are more readily apparent. While the housing allocation allowed for by the plan in the rural area is very much understated the plan itself



cannot influence the proportion of houses that will be built in the open countryside over the plan period.

1.4.57 Our overall conclusion is that while the methodology employed to allocate and

distribute housing across the plan area is generally sound the quantum of housing land, for the reasons we have previously outlined, is significantly in excess of the amount required to accommodate the plan housing allocations. As a result the level of overprovision in housing land in almost all settlement tiers is more than sufficient to cater for the remainder of the plan period and for a substantial period beyond and until a replacement plan can be put in place. In the absence of objections seeking the removal of land from settlements there is little we can do to address this overprovision other than to ensure that the matter is not compounded by any unnecessary additions to the proposed settlement limits. An additional land allocation will therefore only be considered where there are very specific social housing needs identified, or there are urban form arguments or other factors that would justify an exception being made.

Recommendation We recommend that:

No changes are made to Policy HOU 1. Policy HOU 2: Phasing 1.4.58 By letter dated 18 July 2011 the Department withdrew this policy. Accordingly

phasing is no longer a proposal of the plan and no further consideration will be given to objections made to that policy.

Policy HOU 3: Apartment Development in Settlements with Pressure for

Second Homes Background 1.4.59 The draft plan recognizes that since the 1990s most of the coastal settlements

within the plan area have experienced pressure for apartment development, with many schemes having been approved and constructed. The plan indicates (para 2.8.1 on p29 of Vol. 1) that in response to growing public concern over the impact of such schemes that Areas of Opportunity for Apartment Development should be designated in the five coastal settlements of Ballycastle, Castlerock, Portballintrae, Portrush and Portstewart.

1.4.60 The Department confirmed that there is a twofold purpose behind Policy HOU

3. In the first instance it seeks to geographically define those areas within the five settlements where apartment development will be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with 9 criteria. The policy is also expressed negatively in that it seeks to place a blanket ban on apartment schemes outside the defined Areas of Opportunity, the exception being where they comprise part of a comprehensive development of not less than 30 dwellings and which incorporates a range of house types.



1.4.61 Policy HOU 3 has provoked a variety of objections and counter objections. Some argue that the policy is too restrictive, or is unnecessary and should be removed. Others believe that the policy is simply not restrictive enough or that it does not address the fundamental issue of controlling second home ownership in the coastal settlements.

Second Home Ownership 1.4.62 PPS12 defines second homes as being “dwellings that are not occupied as

main residences but are used as holiday/short term homes”. From the representations submitted and arguments made at the EIP it is clear that second home ownership in the North Coast is a very sensitive and contentious issue. There is a lack of consensus on how it should be dealt with but there is general agreement that it has pushed land and property prices up and made it more difficult for the local community, particularly younger people, to afford or acquire permanent housing.

1.4.63 The evidence before us is that most apartment schemes built in the North

Coast involve second home use. Second home ownership in coastal settlements is not, however, as many objectors pointed out, confined or restricted to apartments. The DOE Report to Coleraine Borough Council in 2003, entitled “Second Homes on the North Coast” acknowledges this to be the case, stating in paragraph 12 that “..the large majority of second homes are to be found in the more traditional housing forms..”. Consequently a significant proportion of new houses built between 1999 and 2010 are used seasonally, are not permanently occupied as main residences, or are let as investment properties to groups like students.

1.4.64 Policy HOU 3 does not seek to directly intervene in the ownership or

occupation of existing and proposed properties in the coastal settlements. As the Department has acknowledged, in a free market the land use planning system is limited in its ability to regulate who owns or occupies property. However, the implied, though not explicit, suggestion in the introductory text to HOU 3 is that controlling the location of apartment development will address concerns about second homes in the identified coastal settlements. Any such suggestion is misleading. The proposed policy would impose spatial restrictions on where apartment schemes are permitted within the identified coastal settlements but it will not limit or restrict the ownership or tenure of apartment schemes in the identified areas of opportunity (AOAs) and nor will it restrict second home ownership in the wider housing market.

1.4.65 It is important that the reasons for introducing a tailor made plan policy are

clearly set out and explained. While the high level of second home ownership in apartment schemes has undoubtedly been an issue of concern to the resident communities it seems to us that the proposed policy is more about imposing a spatial limitation on the location of apartment schemes within the five identified coastal settlements and on setting down design principles in those areas where apartments are deemed to be acceptable in principled. As some objectors have pointed out, the reason and purpose for the policy is not entirely clear and needs to be addressed if the policy is to be retained.



Objections to Policy HOU 3 1.4.66 A number of the objections made to HOU 3 are very general in nature. Where

they have not been substantiated with evidence to suggest how the policy should be altered, amended or removed we are not in a position to assess such objections further as we cannot anticipate what is in the mind of the objectors.

1.4.67 A substantial body of objectors argue that the policy is too restrictive outside

the AOAs and that is unnecessary given that there is prevailing regional planning policy in the form of PPS 7 and policy QD 1 in particular. Since the draft plan was published a second addendum to PPS 7 was produced by the Department in May 2010, entitled ‘Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Area’. In paragraph 1.6 of the addendum it is stated that its primary purpose “..is to reinforce existing planning policy on housing within urban areas by introducing additional provisions to protect areas of established residential character, environmental quality and local amenity.” The key consideration is to continue to ensure that new residential schemes are sensitive in design terms to people living in existing neighbourhoods and are in broad harmony with the local character of established residential areas, villages and smaller settlements”

1.4.68 We agree in general with the argument that where prevailing regional planning

policy is in place such policy should be relied on. An exception to that principle can be made where is need for a bespoke policy to address a localized problem or to fill a previously unidentified policy gap. We are not convinced that either argument holds sway within the plan area. Policy LC 1 of the addendum to PPS 7 specifically addresses the protection of local character, environmental quality and residential amenity in established residential areas. As such LC 1 applies within most of the areas that fall outside the AOAs identified in the plan and covers all forms of residential development, whether it be for individual houses, townhouses or apartments. It was put to us that higher density town house schemes can be just as much out of character in the coastal settlements as schemes for apartment blocks. We note that HOU 3 seeks to exclude only apartment development within the wider residential areas. Other forms of residential development would therefore have to be measured against Policy LC 1. It would seem more logical, less confusing and more consistent to assess proposals for all new residential development against the regional policy.

1.4.69 A blanket ban on apartments within large areas of the five coastal settlements

does not rest easily with RNG 8 of the RDS 2035, which indicates that the varied needs of the whole community need to be met. An appropriately scaled and designed apartment scheme could be the most appropriate means of providing affordable permanent homes for particular groups, like the retired who wish to relocate permanently to these coastal settlements, the single, or those who wish to downsize from their existing accommodation. The Department conceded at the examination that provision should be made to permit social housing schemes in developments of less than 30 dwellings. We agree with that suggestion but a balanced community is not something that should only be afforded to social housing or larger scale private developments.



1.4.70 Policy HOU 3, while seeking to preclude apartment development from certain areas within the identified coastal settlements, also seeks to direct such development into the AOAs. As some objectors have highlighted, the way the policy is framed effectively gives a strong presumption in favour of such development within the identified areas. Although there are a number of qualifying criteria to be met, these are mostly matters of design detailing. We have sympathy for the views of those who express concern that the AOAs, which are mostly centrally located and embracing the commercial cores, are the very areas that give the settlements their essential seaside character. While we don’t agree that the individual buildings should be identified as being unsuitable for conversion we share the general concern that there is a policy presumption that favours apartment schemes across the entirety of those areas. There is, for example, already a high concentration of apartments in the AOAs identified for the villages of Castlerock and Portballintrae. The policy, as proposed, would effectively encourage a concentration of apartment development in those areas, which could lead to the loss of commercial, social and other uses in the settlement centres.

1.4.71 As pointed out by various objectors, some of the AOAs overlap with other

designations and land uses such as Areas of Townscape Character, Conservations Areas, Areas of Open Space, and Listed Buildings. All of these designations are material considerations when assessing a development proposal but it strikes us that too many layers of policy and designation could lead to confusion and uncertainty, something that runs at odds with the purpose of plan formulation and policy. We share the concern of Coleraine Borough Council that the policy, with its emphasis on design criteria for new development, could encourage redevelopment rather than the conversion and adaptation of many of the finer and more historic buildings to be found in the defined AOAs. We agree with the Council that the policy and explanatory text should place a more positive emphasis on conversion rather than redevelopment.

1.4.72 The identified AOAs tend to take in those areas within the resorts where tourist

accommodation and facilities have traditionally been located. Accordingly we have some sympathy for the concerns expressed by the Council and other objectors that a presumption in favour of apartment schemes could result in the loss of some of that tourist accommodation. Portrush, in particular, could be vulnerable. As the Council point out there is a strong emphasis in other part of the plan strategy on the importance of tourism in the area and of the need to protect existing assets. However, in an ever changing and evolving market where there has been a shift away from the traditional guest house and bed and breakfast accommodation towards self-catering and second home ownership it is difficult to justify imposing the form of blanket ban on the loss of traditional accommodation argued for by the Council. We are not convinced that the evidence before us justifies such a prescriptive approach.

1.4.73 Contrary to those who argued that the policy is too restrictive others argued

that it required to be made more prohibitive and that the use of phrases within the policy headnote like “adverse effect” and “prevailing character” are too subjective. All policy requires the application of an element of planning judgement and the weighing of opposing arguments. A rigid or narrow definition of such terms would not, in our opinion, be helpful or beneficial.



While it was suggested that the geographical extent of the areas where apartment development would be prohibited should be extended no evidence or maps were provided to define how this should be enacted.

Conclusions on HOU 3 1.4.74 It is clear that there are many and divergent views on whether geographical

limitations should be imposed on the location, scale and form of apartment development within the coastal settlements of the plan area. We believe that the Department has genuinely sought to respond to long standing concerns expressed by local communities at the pace and scale of apartment development prior to and post publication of the draft plan. Circumstances have, however, changed somewhat since the plan was published. Additional regional policy in the form of the second addendum to PPS 7 has been introduced and provides to our mind an appropriate mechanism for assessing proposals for apartments within established residential areas. We do not therefore support that element of HOU 3 that seeks to place an almost blanket ban on apartment developments outside AOAs.

1.4.75 By the same token we have reservations as to whether specific areas of the

coastal settlements should be identified as suitable in principle for apartment developments. We therefore agree with those objectors who argue that each proposal should be assessed on its own merits and in the context of other plan designations and policies. Accordingly we conclude that Policy HOU 3 should be deleted and removed from the plan.


Policy HOU 3 is deleted from the plan.

Policy HOU 4: Maintaining the Residential Stock 1.4.76 By letter dated 18 July 2011 the Department withdrew this policy. Accordingly

no further consideration will be given to objections made to that policy. Policy HOU 5: Meeting Community Housing Needs Regional Policy Context 1.4.77 Regional Guidance Policy RG8 in the RDS 2035 seeks to manage housing

growth to achieve sustainable patterns of residential development. The policy indicates that one of the means of achieving this is to ensure an adequate and available supply of quality housing is provided to meet the needs of everyone. The reference to ‘everyone’ suggests that to provide housing choice there should be a mixture of, and balance between, housing types and tenures. The creation of large areas of housing of similar characteristics is therefore something to be avoided.



1.4.78 The theme of balanced communities is embraced by PPS 12 in one of its stated objectives. In paragraph 26 of PPS 12 seven factors are listed that will determine housing allocations in development plans, one of which is a housing needs assessment (HNA). PPS 12 goes on to state that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) will provide the HNA. The HNA prepared for the draft plan by the NIHE is incorporated within Technical Supplement 1. Paragraph 67 of PPS 12 sets out a menu of measures that should be accommodated in development plan proposals including the following which are particularly relevant to the issue of a mix and balance of housing tenures and types:

e) identify specific sites or areas within settlements where the site or a

proportion of it is required to meet one or more category of need and clearly state the proportion required;

f) identify settlements where the HNA has identified an affordability pressure; h) where justified, in the interests of balanced local communities, specify those sites or areas where the development of certain house types or a

mix of house types will be required. 1.4.79 It is evident that regional planning policy envisages the development plan

process has an important role to play in the achievement of balanced communities and that it can do so by providing clearly expressed policies and proposals based on a structured assessment of need.

Social Housing 1.4.80 Social housing is defined in the glossary to PPS 12 as “housing provided by

registered Social Landlords for rent.” The 2004 HNA from the NIHE indicated that over the following 7 years there was a need within the composite plan area for 240 new social housing units. Aside from the towns of Coleraine, Portstewart and Ballycastle and the villages of Greysteel and Cushendall, the need for additional social housing was predicted to be less than 10 units in the remaining settlements. A requirement of between 5 and 10 units was anticipated to be needed over the following seven years for Dungiven town and for the villages of Cloghmills, Rasharkin and Portballintrae. Within the general context of relatively low social housing demand the Department did not feel it necessary to zone land in the draft plan specifically for social housing, believing that proposed plan policy HOU 5 could deal with any changing circumstances over the plan period, as identified through the HNA process. The draft policy proposed that where a need was identified in a settlement the development control system would be used to require a minimum 20% social or specialist housing provision on proposals involving more than 25 residential units or on sites of more than 1 ha.

1.4.81 There are, however, a number of practical difficulties with the approach

proposed by Policy HOU 5. PPS 12 clearly states, through paragraphs 53, 54 and 104, that it is the development plan process that will be the primary vehicle to facilitate any identified need for social housing and it will be achieved either through the zoning of land or through KSRs. The draft plan, despite having



identified such a need in Coleraine, Portstewart, Ballycastle, Cushendall and Greysteel, has not zoned any land for social housing, and nor has it imposed KSRs on any sites for such a provision, within those settlements.

1.4.82 The NIHE evidence at the EIP, which the Department accepted, was that social

housing needs have increased generally since the plan was drafted. The 2011 Housing Update Paper indicated that the level of social housing need was likely to require the identification of additional housing land at Coleraine, Portrush, Portstewart and Ballycastle and the village of Cushendall.

1.4.83 The fact that the draft plan has failed to make any provision to meet identified

social housing needs is contrary to the process set out in PPS 12. The failure is compounded by the fact that a growing social housing need has emerged in the most recent HNA. As some objectors pointed out, the scope for applying the requirements of HOU 5 in settlements like Portstewart is almost non-existent due to the amount of development already carried out and the substantial bank of existing housing commitments on which no element of social housing was required or stipulated when planning permission first was granted.

1.4.84 Some objectors argued that Policy HOU 5 should be removed from the plan on

the basis that Regional Policy HS 2 in PPS 12 already deals with the provision of social housing. Policy HS 2, like HOU 5, relies on the development control process to require the setting aside of a proportion of land or units for social housing. Policy CTY 5 of PPS 21 makes provision for social and affordable housing related to rural needs but it also relies on the development management process for delivery. Policy HS 2 and CTY 5 appear to contradict paragraphs 53 and 54 and Planning Control Principle 4 (PCP 4) of PPS 12 in which the provision of social housing is seen as primarily a development plan responsibility. Policies HS 2 and CTY 5 can only apply where a need for social housing arises during the lifetime of the plan and where the development plan has not provided for that need. The Department acknowledged that there were issues with the existing regional policy and that it was under review. In the meantime PPS 12 continues to provide the appropriate regional planning context and the one that we must assess objections against.

1.4.85 In our view it is inappropriate to use either policy HS 2 or CTY 5 as a method of

compensating for the failure of the draft plan to make adequate provision for the identified social housing need. As a number of objectors pointed out, there is no certainty that sites will come forward through the development management process. While policy HOU 5 sets out qualifying criteria in terms of development size and the circumstances where a social housing provision could be required, a developer purchasing a site, in the absence of a specific zoning or KSR requirement, could not be certain when the policy might kick in. Like policy HS 2 in PPS 12, Policy HOU 5 does not provide the level of certainty sought by paragraph 35 of PPS 1. The policy, as a number of objectors point out, is too ‘vague’. As paragraph 39 of PPS 1 makes clear, it is expected that development plans will set out the main requirements that developers will be expected to meet in respect of particular zoned sites. While regional policy facilitates some social housing provision through the development management process, it cannot compensate for the failure of the draft Plan to make provision for the current level of identified need. As a



consequence the draft plan does not encourage the development of balanced communities sought by regional policy and as aspired to by the plan itself.

1.4.86 The Department, in collaboration with NIHE, put forward a number of

suggestions at the EIP to address the failure of the draft plan to make adequate provision for social housing in certain settlements. Even as drafted Policy HOU 5 would have required some social housing provision. We, therefore, agree with the Department that in main settlements like Coleraine, Ballycastle and Limavady, where not all zoned land is committed or taken up, there remains scope to require the provision of social housing on objection sites that fall within the proposed settlement limits and which meet the qualifying thresholds of HOU 5. The identification and suitability of those sites will be addressed in stage 2 of our report. In order to provide certainty to developers we consider that sites that are considered suitable to contribute to social housing needs should be clearly identified and that KSRs be attached that clearly set out the requirements for each site. The role of Article 40 Agreements, where it is proposed to be used, should also be made clear.

1.4.87 In view of the general level of housing over provision within the draft plan we

have already concluded that further land is not required for housing purposes. We therefore have difficulty in reconciling the Department’s proposal to incorporate additional green field land within the SDLs of Portstewart, Portrush and Cushendall to make provision for the social housing needs identified in those settlements. We acknowledge that there are particular problems in those settlements due to previous commitments and to rising social housing needs. However, given the period of time that has elapsed since the draft plan was prepared and the downturn in the economy since 2008, there may well be sites that were formerly committed which no longer fall within that category. The Department should review these permissions and apply the requirements of HOU 5, attaching KRSs that clearly set out any likely requirements in terms of social housing provision.

1.4.88 There are also other issues with the Department’s suggestion that edge of

settlement sites should be set aside for social housing provision. While the sites identified jointly by the Department and NIHE are subject to objection we note that most of those objections were ultimately dealt with under the written representation process. There is an issue of transparency with this as the objectors were not present at the strategic session or in the subsequent site specific discussions and were therefore unable to respond directly to the arguments presented by the Department. A key element of the Department’s case was that objection sites, or parts thereof, would only be included within the SDL if made available solely and exclusively for social housing. A social housing requirement, amongst other things, can have financial implications for the viability of a housing scheme. In our view objection sites should not be re-assessed for their suitability to provide social housing land unless offered or agreed to by the objector. Where an objector was involved in discussions at stage two of the examination process and expressed a clear willingness to accommodate the social housing provision sought by the Department, we will give consideration to the inclusion of that land within the SDL, but only where we are satisfied that there are sound physical planning reasons for the inclusion of that land within the settlement limits. We will assess the merits of such objection sites in stage 2 of our report.



Conclusions on Social Housing 1.4.89 In summary we agree with those objectors who argue that the plan should have

a policy that sets out clearly the basis on which developers will be expected to meet social housing needs and delivers provision to those settlements where need is most pressing. We accept that social housing need is variable across the plan area and that plan policy should be flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. However, HOU 5, as currently framed, relies unduly on the development management system. The policy does not provide the level of certainty or the mechanism for delivery that is expected and required of a development plan. We recommend that in settlements where the latest HNA identifies a social housing need in excess of 10 units a review should be made of all suitable and uncommitted sites. Sites should then be zoned or KSRs attached to them to make it clear what level of social housing provision is to be made.

1.4.90 As part of the process of identifying land suitable for social housing NIHE

should carefully review the suitability of all land within its ownership. Land owned by NIHE and currently set aside as open space could form a part of that review, but must be assessed in the context of the policy requirements of PPS 8. In the event that a shortfall of social housing provision still remains, and there is no alternative other than to allocate additional land outside the SDL, suitable sites should be brought forward as an alteration to the plan under Article 6 of the Planning Order.

1.4.91 We acknowledge that it is difficult to predict social housing needs over the

length of a plan period. Needs can and do fluctuate over time in response to changing economic and market trends. Provided that the plan makes every effort to meet the projected social housing needs in the latest HNA any unforeseen shortfall can be met through the development management process on the basis of regional policy as expressed through PPS 12. Provision for small deficits in the smaller settlements could also be met through the development management process in relation to Policy CTY 5 of PPS 21. Since CTY 5 defines smaller settlements as those below a population of 2,500 the policy would be of relevance to all villages and small settlements in the four districts as well as the towns of Garvagh and Kilrea in Coleraine District and Bushmills and Cushendall in Moyle District.

1.4.92 Given our findings and conclusions above, we do not agree with those

objectors who argue that policy HOU 5 should be removed from the plan and reliance placed on HS 2 of PPS 12. While policy HOU 5, in the absence of specific zonings and KSR requirements, does not presently set out sufficiently clearly the circumstances where a developer will be required to make provision for a social housing element within a development we do not accept that the principle of such a requirement is unreasonable. The thresholds suggested in HOU 5 strike a reasonable balance between the size of site and development identified and the percentage requirement for social housing provision. We are, therefore, not persuaded by arguments that it is necessary to lower the size thresholds or ratios set out in HOU 5. Likewise, we do not accept that it is unreasonable to expect larger developments to meet the main requirements for social housing provision, or that the policy is overly burdensome. While windfall sites could make a contribution to social housing provision it is difficult



to predict their availability. Some sites are simply too small to accommodate the mix of tenures that will achieve community balance. Such sites are unlikely to be of interest to social housing providers. As PCP 4 in PPS 12 emphasises “Social housing should be provided by developers as an integral element of larger housing developments where a need is identified”.


All un-committed sites, and sites on which planning permission has lapsed, that are in excess of 1 ha or have the potential to deliver more than 25 housing units, and are located in settlements where a social housing deficit of 10 units or more has been identified in the most recent HNA, should be reassessed to establish if they could contribute to meeting unfulfilled need for social housing over the plan period;

Those sites identified as suitable by the review process should be

identified in Policy HOU 5, setting out the level of provision and the mechanism for delivery;

Greenfield objection sites identified by the Department as suitable

for social housing provision should be identified in Policy HOU 5, setting out the level of provision and the mechanism for delivery, but only where objectors have expressed a clear willingness to accommodate the required social housing provision and the site has been assessed as having sound physical planning reasons that would justify its inclusion within the limits of the settlement in question.

If there is still a deficit in social housing, sites should be identified

to meet the need and proposals brought forward as an alteration to the plan under Article 6 of the Planning Order.

Affordable Housing 1.4.93 A number of objectors expressed concern that the draft plan does not

adequately address the issue of affordable housing. PPS 12 defines affordable housing as being “the social rented sector, housing benefit funded private rented and that part of the low cost owner occupation market which can be purchased utilising 30% or less of gross household income”. In the September 2004 HNA the NIHE highlighted that there was a serious affordability issue in Moyle District and that the percentage of affordable housing was falling in the districts of Coleraine and Ballymoney. The HNA also highlighted the potential problems of high levels of second home ownership in North Coast settlements and a consequent knock on effect on affordability.

1.4.94 The draft plan does not seek to make provision for affordable housing but

rather suggests that the issue would be addressed in PPS 12, which was published just a few months after the draft plan. However, PPS 12 concludes



in paragraph 51 that it is not appropriate to impose an arbitrary level of affordable housing to be delivered by the private market and goes on in paragraph 52 to indicate that it will be delivered through the identification of land for social housing.

1.4.95 An independent report by Sir John Semple, “Review of Affordable Housing”

was published in April 2007 but there is no indication that its recommendations have been progressed. Although the Department alluded to possible revisions to PPS 12 none have come forward to date. Consequently we can only consider objections to affordable housing within the context of the existing PPS 12 policy.

1.4.96 The affordability issue is a complex one and no less so in the coastal

settlements where second home ownership levels have been so high. It is though an issue that is sensitive to changes in market conditions. The downturn in house prices post 2008 is likely to have had an impact on affordability but we have little in the way of evidence to enable us to comment on that matter. We are not persuaded that significantly increasing the supply of housing land generally would impact positively on affordability given the general level of over provision of housing land within the plan area. Whilst we note the concerns raised by objectors about the desirability of having a tailored plan policy to deal with this issue we cannot, in the absence of a regional mandate for such requirement, insist on its inclusion within the plan. Consequently we cannot endorse suggestions such as introducing fiscal measures to encourage the sale of land for affordable housing and as a control measure over second homes by way of increased rates.

1.4.97 Should revised regional policy come forward before the plan is adopted we

would expect the Department to take that matter into account. As it stands though we agree with the Department that it would be appropriate to remove paragraphs 2.11.1 to 2.11.3 referring to affordable housing as the plan itself has no mechanism to directly address the issue. We agree with the objector who points out that the titling of Policy HOU 5 as “Meeting Community Housing Needs” is misleading since it only deals with social and specialist housing. We concur with the Department’s suggestion that the policy be re-titled “Social and Supported Housing”.

Recommendation

We recommend that: Policy HOU 5 should be re-titled “Social and Supported Housing”.



Policy HOU6: Conversion of Buildings for Multiple Occupation Background 1.4.98 The Triangle towns of Portstewart, Portrush and Coleraine accommodate a

significant number of University of Ulster students who live off campus. Much of this accommodation takes the form of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO). The historic concentration of this form of housing, particularly in the coastal towns, has been an issue of long standing concern in the local community.

1.4.99 An HMO is defined in Article 75 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992,

as amended by Article 143 (1) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. Paragraphs (1) and (1A) of Article 75 of the Housing (NI) Order 1992 provide:

“(1) . . .house in multiple occupation” means a house occupied by more than 2 qualifying persons, being persons who are not all members of the same family.

(1A) In paragraph (1) “qualifying persons” means persons whose only or principal residence is the house in multiple occupation, and for that purpose a person undertaking a full time course of further or higher education who resides during term time in a house shall, during the period of that person’s residence, be regarded as residing there as his only or principal residence

1.4.100 An HMO is an individual dwelling unit, whether it is a house or a flat/apartment.

The Planning (Use Classes) Order (NI) 2004 includes Houses in Multiple Occupation as a sui generis use. This means that a change of use to a HMO requires planning permission in all instances.

Objections to HOU 6 1.4.101 Some of the objections to HOU 6 are of a very general nature and in the

absence of further explanation we cannot anticipate what was in the mind of the objectors.

1.4.102 Post publication of the draft plan an addendum to Planning Policy 7 (PPS 7)

was published in May 2010, dealing with safeguarding the character of established residential areas. Policy LC 2 of the PPS 7 Addendum deals with the conversion or change of use of existing buildings to flats or apartments, including those proposed to be used for multiple occupancy. We agree with those objectors who argue that where there is regional policy in place to deal with a particular issue it is unnecessary to replicate or repeat that policy in the plan. To that extent we consider that Policy HOU 6 should not apply to such conversions.

1.4.103 Policy LC 2 does not, however, deal with the situation where a house is used

for the purpose of multiple occupation but is not physically converted or sub-divided up into separate self-contained units but rather remains as a single dwellinghouse. The evidence before us is that a number of dwellings in the coastal towns, usually investment properties or second homes, are sub-let for student occupation, or that house sharing is taking place. Under the provisions of the 2004 Use Classes Order planning permission is required if the property is occupied by more than two unrelated persons. It is the use of these



properties as HMOs that has caused so much consternation amongst the settled community and we agree with the Department that a bespoke plan policy is one means of seeking to address that concern.

1.4.104 To take account of the introduction of Policy LC 2 and the fact that it does not

deal with the use of single dwellings as HMOs, the Department suggested that the wording of the HOU 6 policy headnote could be amended so that the policy would apply only to dwellings used as HMOs. Given the particular characteristics of HMOs in the Triangle area and the number of dwellings being used for that purpose we see merit in such an approach. The headnote would then simply refer to the use of dwellings for multiple occupation rather than the existing phrase, which covers the wider issue of the conversion of buildings for multiple occupation. The general criteria set out in HOU 6 in relation to issues such as the suitability of the property, external design and parking should ensure that the property retains the characteristics of a single dwelling and respects the character of the surrounding area. We do not consider these criteria to be excessive but their precise wording should be refined to take account of the proposed limitation of the policy to the use of dwellings as HMOs only. Since we do not consider that the issue of converting a non-residential property into a single dwelling for the purposes of multiple occupation is a critical issue criterion 5 could be removed. Such design issues would, in any case, be a normal planning consideration in dealing with such a proposal.

1.4.105 Policy HOU 6 is not a spatial policy. Nor does it deal with the issue of anti

social behaviour associated with HMOs. It is those particular issues that generated most concerns amongst objectors, who are seeking to add additional control mechanisms into HOU 6 to place a cap on the number and location of student HMOs, particularly in Portstewart. We note that following publication of the draft plan, the Department published a Coleraine Borough HMO Subject Plan 2016 Issues Paper” in April 2006 in recognition of the very specific concerns expressed by objectors.

1.4.106 At the EIP the Department indicated that public response to the Issues Paper

was of a limited nature, with only 8 submissions, 5 of which were from other Government Departments. We are not party to the content of those responses but the Department expressed an opinion that the level of public concern did not seem to justify an intervention. However, the Department further indicated that it was still undecided as to whether to proceed with a Subject Plan. That decision must ultimately be a matter for the Department to determine.

1.4.107 Notwithstanding concerns expressed by some objectors, limited evidence was

placed before us to persuade us that a plan policy is required to place a cap or ceiling on specific areas within the coastal towns. A comparison of the Holyland area in Belfast with Portstewart is not comparing like with like and no persuasive evidence was presented to us to demonstrate that the issues in Portstewart are as significant or as widespread as those in Belfast. No specific areas were identified where it was felt that a cap should be applied.

1.4.108 We note that the second part of criterion 1 of HOU 6 takes into account the

issue of adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the character of the surrounding area. Implicitly considerations of issues such as



‘amenity’ and ‘character’ suggest that account should be taken of the cumulative impact of HMOs in a given area. For the purposes of clarity, though, the issue of cumulative impact should be drawn out in the explanatory text to HOU 6 and could be done so in a manner similar to that in the text accompanying Policy LC 2 of the Addendum to PPS 7. Cumulative impact would then be a matter for the development management system to assess, when dealing with applications for HMOs. That being so, and on the basis of the information before us, we do not see a need for Policy HOU 6 to incorporate a general cap or ceiling on HMOs. Nor do we agree with Coleraine Borough Council, in the absence of more persuasive evidence, that it is appropriate to introduce a 10% threshold or any of the other spatial restrictions found in the HMO Subject Plan for Belfast City Council Area. No specific areas were identified for such restrictions and there is insufficient evidence before us to justify such an approach. Likewise we see no justification for including additional criteria in the policy such as “where there is a need identified by the University for further student housing”. HMOs accommodate more than students. Other suggested phrases like “where there has already been a loss of amenity, permission for further HMO should be refused” are too subjective and suggest that the character of an area has already been changed.

1.4.109 Considerable time has passed since the draft plan was published and we are

conscious that certain circumstances may have changed in the intervening period. With increasing university fees more students may now be studying and living at home than was previously the case. The evidence from the Department is that they are not experiencing significant pressure for HMO planning applications while the NIHE indicated that the number of HMOs had decreased from previous levels, albeit levels tended to fluctuate. We also have no evidence to suggest that the University is experiencing any shortage of student accommodation. Nevertheless, the door remains open for the Department to consider whether further research should be undertaken on the matter and whether the issue of potential spatial controls or caps and of how to deal with anti-social behaviour, could more properly be addressed through a Subject Plan.

We recommend that:

The policy headnote be amended to read: “Use of Dwellings for Multiple Occupation”

The precise wording of the remainder of the headnote and qualifying

criterion should be refined to take account of the proposed limitation of the policy to the use of dwellings as HMOs only;

We further recommend that the explanatory text of HOU 6 makes it

clear that full account will be taken of the potentially damaging effect of cumulative changes in a neighbourhood by which proposals, although not detrimental in isolation, could be judged to be detrimental when considered alongside other recently approved development.



1.5. INDUSTRY, BUSINESS and DISTRIBUTION Background 1.5.1 The sixth objective of the draft plan is “to facilitate economic development and the

creation and maintenance of employment, consistent with New Targeting Social Need.” In section 3, of Volume 1 of the plan, it is stated that the main hubs of Coleraine and Limavady will be the major focus for employment locations within the plan area. Ballymoney and Ballycastle, as local hubs, are also identified as being suitable for economic development, but on a lesser scale. In that context Allocation IND 1 allocates 138.8 ha (corrected to 132.7 ha in the DOE evidence to the EIP) of land for industry across the plan area with the major concentrations being in Coleraine (51.2 ha) and Limavady Districts (64.2 ha).

Regional Planning Context 1.5.2 A recurring theme with the draft plan is that delay in its progress from initial

publication has meant that the regional planning policy context has changed or been amended in the intervening years. Consequently the RDS 2025 has been replaced by the RDS 2035, while PPS 4: Industrial Development, published in March 1997, has been replaced by PPS 4: Planning and Economic Development, published in November 2010. The RDS 2035 and PPS 4 emphasise that economic opportunities across Northern Ireland should be concentrated on a strategic network of hubs, corridors and gateways. The broad direction of strategic policy is therefore very similar to that promoted by SPG-ECON 1 and SPG-ECON 2 of the RDS 2025. While job creation is not a direct function of the planning system development plans are charged with identifying the location of land that is considered to be most suitable for employment purposes. In that respect Policy RG 1 of the RDS 2035 seeks to “ensure adequate supply of land to facilitate sustainable economic growth”, while the second objective of PPS 4 is to ensure “..the provision of a generous supply of land suitable for economic development and a choice and range in terms of quality, size and location.” It is against this context that Allocation IND 1 and objections to it stand to be assessed.

Objections to Allocation IND 1 1.5.3 Objectors raised a limited range of issues with Allocation IND 1. While some

argued that insufficient land had been zoned for industry across the plan area, most did not put forward a coherent strategic argument to explain the basis for such an assertion, nor did they put forward suggested resolutions to any perceived shortfall. We cannot give further consideration to or support such unsubstantiated objections.

1.5.4 PPS 4, in paragraph 4.19, spells out a number of matters that should be assessed

in the course of preparing a development plan. One of those is consideration of past trends in the take-up of land for economic development purposes. The Department provided updated figures in its evidence (Table 2) to demonstrate that over the 20 year period between 1990 and 2009 some 12.5 ha of land zoned in the NEAP 2002 (the combined districts of Ballymoney, Coleraine and Moyle) had been taken-up, an average annual land take-up of 0.62 ha. In the 26 year period between 1984 and 2009 some 29.6 ha of industrial land was taken up in LAP, giving an annual average of 1.14ha. With a residue of zoned land (Table 3 of DOE submission) of 49.6 ha in Coleraine, 49.2 ha in Limavady and 12.1 ha in



Ballymoney, it is clear that, based on past trends in take–up, there is more than sufficient provision made for industrial land over the plan period. We note that while a lower provision has been made for Ballycastle, it traditionally has had little industrial activity and we are satisfied that adequate provision has been made for it within that context.

1.5.5 Past trends of take-up are not, of course, the only consideration to be had. PPS 4

makes it clear that future needs should also be assessed, including making provision for a choice and range of sites. We are satisfied that the Department has taken such matters into account in its analysis. This view is strongly supported in the evidence provided by Invest Northern Ireland (INI) and in comments made by the INI witness at the EIP. Not all job opportunities will be provided on the industrial zonings identified in the plan. Some job creation will be provided through the expansion of existing businesses. In that respect the RDS and PPS 4 both recognise the need to safeguard existing economic development land. This is reflected in the draft plan by the identification of existing industrial land. Other job opportunities will arise from enterprises on individually owned land spread throughout the region. Looked at in the round, we are satisfied that the draft plan provides more than sufficient land to cater for anticipated employment needs over the plan period.

1.5.6 Some objectors argued that more large single sites were required, while others

argued that development of just one large site would have consequences for the overall provision made in the draft plan. The undisputed evidence from INI is that 96% of its site sales in Northern Ireland have been for sites of less than 4 ha, with an average site size of 0.95 ha. The experience of INI over the past decade is that really large single site users are now very uncommon. In the event of one coming forward regional planning policy, in the form of Policy PED 5 of PPS 4, makes provision for accommodating major industrial development in the countryside in circumstances where there is no suitable or available site within settlement limits. We therefore agree with the Department that sufficient industrial land is zoned in Aghanloo Industrial Estate, specifically, and across the remainder of the plan area in general.

1.5.7 Coleraine and Limavady are identified as main hubs in the RDS. While Coleraine is

a larger town than Limavady and has been allocated a larger housing allocation, we are satisfied that the provision made for industrial land zoning in Coleraine is appropriate and more than addresses need in terms of past take-up trends and future needs. We agree with the Department that the similarity of the IND 1 allocation in Limavady to that of Coleraine reflects the historical designation of the former air strip at Aghanloo to industrial uses. The draft plan proposes to retain the extent of the industrial designation in LAP and given more recent improvements in transport links to Aghanloo we agree that it is appropriate to do so.

1.5.8 While some argued that there should be additional industrial zonings to reflect

housing allocations in the plan they did not elaborate on those concerns. We agree with the Department that regional policy does not propose that industrial land be allocated in the same manner as housing growth. The main hubs are identified as the growth poles and the draft plan allocation in IND 1 reflects that approach.



1.5.9 While modest parcels of land are zoned for industry in Bushmills and Cushendall we note that these adjoin existing established uses and that those allocations reflect potential plans for expansion. We endorse that approach and find that there is no compelling justification, given the thrust and content of existing regional policy, to have industrial or employment zonings in the remaining settlements within the plan area. In the event that such an unforeseen need arises, regional policy, in the form of PPS 4, provides a mechanism to consider proposals for the establishment, or expansion, of businesses located in the countryside, or on the edge of small settlements.

1.5.10 The thrust of regional policy does not favour industrial development in the open

countryside. However, PPS 21 and PPS 4 allow for the consideration of individual proposals through the development management system. We do not therefore agree that it is necessary or appropriate for the plan to specifically designate economic development land in the countryside, in areas such as the Antrim Glens.

1.5.11 A number of objectors identified a need for industrial zonings in particular locations,

but in doing so put forward very specific and localised arguments. Such arguments will be assessed in more detail when we examine site specific matters at district level. Having found, however, that there is no strategic need for additional industrial land zoning across the plan area, new allocations will be confined to circumstances where there is a replacement of unacceptable allocations or where there are sound physical planning reasons, such as the limited rounding off of the urban form, to justify the inclusion of additional land within the SDL.

1.5.12 The zoning of land for industrial purposes, like other zonings, is intended to provide

a measure of certainty (paragraph 35 of PPS 1). Regional policy aims to retain and protect industrial zonings and in that respect we do not support the argument that there should be greater flexibility incorporated into such zonings. Proposals for alternative uses can be considered under the development management system and assessed against PPS 4 and all other relevant material considerations. There is also no need for the plan to identify a Strategic Employment Location (SEL), as all references to the SEL concept have been removed from regional policy and the RDS.

1.5.13 The heading to this section in the draft plan is titled ‘Industry, Business and

Distribution’ while the Technical Supplement to the plan only refers to industry. All of these terms have different meanings in term of the Use Classes Order 2004 (UCO). We agree with the objector who points out that care should be taken with the language and terminology used in the plan as it can cause confusion and uncertainty as to what uses are likely to be permitted on the respective zonings. The Department indicated in its evidence that it proposes to update the explanatory text associated with IND 1 and recognises the benefits of referring to the UCO. We agree with that suggestion and recommend that not only should the text in IND 1 spell out what is acceptable with cross reference to the UCO but that this should also be translated through into the individual allocations within Volume 2 of the plan, where restrictions of uses are proposed for particular sites. Given that PPS 4 has been revised and is now titled “Economic Development” the use of this term would avoid any perception that priority is being given to industry. In line with this reasoning we recommend that the title “IND 1” is revised in the Plan to “ECD 1” and that the heading to this section is renamed as Economic Development.




The title of the section on Industry, Business and Distribution should be changed to “Economic Development”;

The Allocation IND 1: Industry/Business/Distribution Land should be

renamed “Allocation ECD 1: Economic Development”; The text within the section should be consistent and reflect the above

rewording and the appropriate regional policy context, with specific reference to the UCO in relation to acceptable uses;

The individual zonings in Volume 2 of the plan should clearly set out

acceptable uses with reference to the UCO



1.6. RETAIL, SERVICES AND OFFICES

Background 1.6.1 The background to the proposed draft plan polices on retailing, services and

offices, is set out on page 37 of Volume 1 of the plan. The draft plan proposed a number of specific policies for the plan area. However, by letter dated 18 July 2011 the Department indicated that since most of those policies could be controlled under regional policy, which was under review in draft PPS 5: Retailing, Town Centres and Commercial Leisure Developments, it wished to withdraw the following policies from the plan:

Policy RSO 1 Developments Attracting Large Numbers of People; Policy RSO 2 Facilities and Services at Local Centres; Policy RSO 3 Protection of Existing Commercial Facilities

1.6.2 In the same letter to the Commission, the Department also stated that it considered Policy RSO 4: Shopfronts to be unnecessary and that it likewise was withdrawn from the plan.

1.6.3 The remaining objection issues are confined to Policy RSO 5: Security Grilles and

Shutters and to matters of a more general nature relating to retailing.

Objections to Policy RSO 5: Security Grilles and Shutters 1.6.4 While a number of objectors argued that the proposed policy is general and should

not be applied across the board, no persuasive argument was presented to support this line of reasoning. Policy RSO 5 is a specific policy that seeks to address the individual and collective impact that security grilles and shutters can have on the street scene. The plan recognizes that increasing levels of crime and vandalism have forced businesses to improve their security measures but suggests that the visual appearance of those measures can be minimized by careful design and detailing. We see much merit in such an approach. The existence of this policy will highlight to prospective developers/retailers that the design and appearance of security grilles and shutters should be a consideration at design stage. Ultimately it will be for the development management system to consider the merits of each proposal and the need for strict compliance with the plan policy. We do not, therefore, support these objections.

Retail Policy

1.6.5 We do not disagree with the objector who commented that there was a need for

vibrant town and village centres across the plan area and that such centres form an important part of the attraction for visitors. It is not clear, though, how the objector thought the plan should act on this matter. We do, however, note that the introductory text to this section recognizes the importance of the role of town and village centres across the plan area and seeks to contribute to the protection of those facilities, as does regional policy, through PPS 5: Retailing and Town Centres. The plan identifies town centre boundaries for the four hubs and for



Portrush and Portstewart, while district centre boundaries are defined in the towns of Bushmills, Cushendall, Dungiven, Garvagh and Kilrea. We are satisfied, therefore, that the draft plan makes appropriate provision to promote and protect the role of those retail centres.

1.6.6 The issue of applying a sequential test similar to that employed in GB planning

policy is a matter for regional planning policy in Northern Ireland to consider in general. We are not persuaded that a bespoke plan policy for Coleraine Town Centre is therefore appropriate. An objection seeking that the plan should take account of Coleraine Town Centre Partnership Ltd Development briefs was not supported with evidence that persuades us that any change is required to the plan. The approach to town centre development can be considered in the context of both the designations in the plan and regional policy. Another objector argued that the plan fails to guide further retail development and that there should be a policy to do so and with appropriate flexibility. The objection does not, however, elaborate on the form or type of guidance that is deemed necessary. We cannot, therefore, comment further on this matter.

1.6.7 The plan sets out a hierarchy of commercial centres for the plan area in paragraph

4.31. In Coleraine there is a proposed Town Centre designation. Objections were presented to the failure of the plan to provide policy to address Riverside Regional Park in Coleraine, seeking that it be designated as a District Centre. PPS 5 defines a District Centre as “groups of shops, separate from the town centre, usually containing at least one food supermarket or superstore and non-retail service uses such as banks, building societies and restaurants”.. While Riverside Regional Park has a superstore, a supermarket and other food outlets as well as several restaurants it does not have non-retail uses such as banks and building societies. The existing retail units are mostly retail warehouses that do not provide convenience retailing or meet a local need. Coleraine Town Centre is the appropriate location for major retail proposals and comparison shopping. We agree with the Department that designating Riverside as a District Centre would promote its growth in Coleraine in general and could ultimately be detrimental to vitality and viability of Coleraine town centre. We conclude that it should not be designated as a District Centre.

1.6.8 An objector argued that there should be a specific plan policy to encourage

discount food stores with a net floorspace of 1000-1750 square metres into or on the edge of Local, District and Town Centres. Discount retail food stores are not something that is specific to the plan area and is best considered at regional level and assessed against regional policy. We are not persuaded that the plan requires provision of such a policy.


No changes are made to the plan as a result of these objections.



1.7. TOURISM

Background 1.7.1 The background to the proposed draft plan polices on tourism is set out on

page 43 of Volume 1 of the plan. The draft plan explains in paragraph 5.2.2 that there was an urgent need to update operational planning policy in the plan area until regional policy on tourism could be reviewed and replaced. Accordingly a number of specific policies for the plan area were put forward. However, by letter dated 18 July 2011 the Department indicated that most of those policies were formulated when much of the plan area, particularly the Causeway Coast, was constrained by Countryside Policy Areas. The letter went on to indicate that with the publication of PPS 21 and of draft PPS 16 on Tourism the following proposed plan policies should be withdrawn from the plan:

Policy TOU1 Tourist Facilities and Attractions; Policy TOU2 Tourist Accommodation within Settlements;

Policy TOU3 Tourist Accommodation in the Countryside; and

Policy TOU4 Camping and Caravans.

1.7.2 In the same letter to the Commission the Department further indicated that

strategic policy covering the whole of the plan area in respect of the control of amusement arcades was unnecessary as existing regional policy already addressed the issue. Accordingly it withdrew Policy TOU 6 on the basis that specific local issues in Portstewart and Portrush were addressed in Volume 2 of the plan.

1.7.3 With the withdrawal of these policies the only remaining tourism policy in the

plan is Policy TOU 5, to which various objections were made. Objections of a more general nature also brought up issues such as the regeneration of tourist resorts; the need for a Tourism Initiative for Roe Valley and the Lower Bann; and a lack of policy provision for tourism/leisure and recreational facilities outside of settlements. These objections are considered below.

Objections to Policy TOU 5: Existing Caravan Parks Outside Settlement Development Limits

1.7.4 A number of objectors expressed opposition to draft plan policy TOU 5 but did

not explain the nature or basis of their objection. We cannot consider such objections further. The issue of whether Ballyness Caravan Park, Bushmills should be zoned for tourism use will be dealt with in our site specific report on Moyle District.

1.7.5 When the Department withdrew TOU policies 1-4 it indicated that it had done

so on the basis that regional planning policy would deal with such matters. At the EIP it acknowledged that if the existing holiday/caravan parks previously located within the settlement limits of NEAP 2002 were left outside the revised settlement limits proposed by the draft plan, regional policies would be



sufficient to provide the necessary control and guidance it was seeking. In such a scenario the Department accepted that bespoke policy TOU 5 was unlikely to be required. We previously indicated in paragraph 1.3.62 of our report on strategic matters that we endorse the draft plan approach of placing large peripheral caravan parks outside the proposed settlement limits. We see no reason to depart from that approach as not all SDLs will represent a clean break between urban and rural uses. We agree with the Department that excluding these parks from the SDL offers protection of the tourism asset which the holiday/caravan park provides by avoiding the risk of any unplanned development for alternatives uses, such as housing.

1.7.6 Having acknowledged that regional policy would be capable of dealing with

future development proposals within the peripheral caravan parks previously located within settlement limits we have difficulty in reconciling the Department’s reluctance to withdraw draft plan policy TOU 5 in respect of other existing parks situated further away from settlements and in the open countryside. With the removal of Green Belt and CPA designations from the plan the same overarching policy could be applied to all existing caravan parks in the countryside. We accept that regional policy in the form of PPS 16: Tourism was not in its final form when the issue was discussed at the EIP but having withdrawn most of the other TOU policies we have difficulty in reconciling the Department’s hesitancy in respect of TOU 5. Ultimately the Department did not put forward a convincing argument that would persuade us that bespoke policy TOU 5 should be retained. Since we recommend its removal from the plan this would address the concerns of those objectors who argued that the draft plan policy was too restrictive, too inflexible and that it should be removed from the plan.

Lack of Policy for the Regeneration of Tourist Resorts

1.7.7 Objections were made about the omission of strategic policy relating to the

regeneration of tourist resorts, such as Portrush and for the protection of existing tourist accommodation. We note that PPS 16, as published in June 2103, defines a tourist asset as: “Any feature associated with the built or natural environment which is of intrinsic interest to tourists” and that Policy TSM 8 proposes to safeguard tourist assets. We agree, however, with the Department that, from the evidence presented, it is difficult to justify putting in place plan policies to protect and exclusively retain existing tourist accommodation like hotels, Guest Houses and B & Bs within the resorts when market forces point towards alternative forms of accommodation such as self catering. The plan has identified various zonings, target and opportunity sites throughout the coastal resorts, some of which have already been redeveloped. The Department stated that it would continue to work with Coleraine Borough Council and the DSD in respect of the regeneration of the coastal resorts. We are satisfied that the plan requires no amendments in response to these objections.

The need for Strategic Tourism Initiative for Roe Valley or the

development of the Lower Bann 1.7.8 An objector sought a strategic tourism initiative for the Roe Valley but did not

go on to expand or explain the nature or extent of the initiative being sought. In



the absence of such information we cannot assess the merits of this objection further. Another objector argued that the plan made inadequate provision for the development of tourism infrastructure on the Lower Bann. The identification, in this respect, of a specific site for river based recreation and related tourism infrastructure at Cranagh, north of Coleraine, will be dealt with in our site specific report on Coleraine District. PPS16 provides a range of planning policies to promote tourism development and we are satisfied that regional policy provides the appropriate context to address any specific development proposals in the Roe Valley or the Lower Bann.

1.7.9 One objector argued that the statement in paragraph 5.1.1 of the plan that: ‘The

Lower Bann is the only navigable river in the plan area’ should be amended by adding the phrase ‘that it has a significant potential for green/sustainable tourism’. No further elaboration was made on this point. The introductory sentence to this paragraph recognises that plan area has some of Northern Ireland’s prime tourism assets, noting the Lower Bann to be one of them. We are not persuaded that there is a need to single out the significance of the Lower Bann in this paragraph over and above the other tourism assets in the plan area.

Lack of policy provision for tourism/leisure and recreational facilities

outside of settlements. 1.7.10 While it was argued that the draft plan lacked policy provision for

tourism/leisure or recreational facilities outside of settlement limits and in the open countryside, no explanation or elaboration was provided to substantiate what policy should be put in place or how it should be applied. Paragraph 37 of PPS 1 says that development plans will normally focus on proposals, zonings and designations. It is a land use plan not a tourism development strategy and cannot provide a response to every tourism issue facing the area. Policies contained in regional policy through PPS21 and PPS16 address various types of tourism related development in the countryside. There is no need for this to be repeated in the plan.

Recommendation

We recommend that:

Policy TOU5 is removed from the Plan.



1.8. ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Background 1.8.1 The background to the draft plan policies on Environment and Conservation is

set out on page 51, of Volume 1, of the plan. The draft plan proposes a number of specific policies for the plan area. However, by letter dated 19 April 2011 the Department indicated that it wished to withdraw Policy ENV 6: Areas of Townscape/Village Character as it considered that the policy context for the designations proposed in Volume 2 (District Proposals) of the plan was adequately provided for by prevailing regional policy.

1.8.2 In further correspondence to the Commission, dated 19 July 2011, the

Department indicated that it also wished to withdraw Policy ENV 1: Biodiversity.

1.8.3 We note the withdrawal of both these plan policies, but agree with the

Department that the some of the supporting text accompanying them could be retained, but only where this provides important background information and explains the context of the ATC designations proposed in Volume 2 of the draft plan. The remaining ENV policies remain before us and are considered below, as are objections raising more general matters relating to environment and conservation. The Courts addressed the issue of the soundness of the plan’s Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The soundness of the policies in respect of the SEA is therefore not a matter before us.

Objections to Policy ENV 2: Local Landscape Policy Ares (LLPAs) 1.8.4 While a number of objectors expressed opposition to draft plan policy ENV 2,

they did not explain the basis of their objection or how it could be resolved. We cannot give further consideration to such generalised and unsubstantiated objections.

1.8.5 A number of objections were largely expressions of opposition to specific

LLPA designations and focused on the extent of the proposed designations or the definition of their boundaries. Other objections simply argued that the plan proposed too many LLPAs. The aforementioned objections, and those questioning the features that contribute to the designations, can only be dealt with on a site specific basis. We will address such arguments when assessing district proposals.

1.8.6 The concept of LLPAs is spelt out in paragraph 2.23 of PPS 6. Paragraph

2.24 of the same document indicates that, where appropriate, development plans will designate them, setting out local policies and guidance to maintain the intrinsic environmental value and character of such areas. The draft Plan proposes, in total, the designation of 149 LLPAs. The boundaries of the proposed designations are set out on the draft plan maps and the District Proposals identify the features that contribute to the environmental quality, integrity or character of the areas. PPS 6 only makes provision for the identification of LLPAs, it does not provide operational policies for them. Consequently, while some objectors questioned the rationale and justification for policy ENV 2 we are satisfied that such an overarching policy is required to



give effect to and provide protection for the identified features of each LLPA designation.

1.8.7 Differing views were expressed about the appropriateness of the wording of

elements of the policy headnote in ENV 2. Some thought it was either too vague or restrictive. Others expressed a different perspective and felt that it should be strengthened or made more restrictive. These conflicting viewpoints were specifically expressed in respect of the middle paragraph in the headnote, which, in the draft plan, reads:

“Where riverbanks are included within LLPAs, planning permission will only be granted where access is provided to the river corridor as part of the development proposals”.

1.8.8 We agree with those objectors who argued that it may not be ecologically wise to always require public access to the river corridor, given the sensitivity of certain habitats and species along riverbanks. The use of the word “only” in the middle of the headnote does not take account of such situations. We are not, however, persuaded that simply substituting in the word “normally”, as suggested by an objector, is the appropriate solution. Instead we favour the use of the phrase “ access may be required to the river corridor as part of the development proposals” It also seems prudent to us to acknowledge, as argued by another objector, that account is taken of the impact that any potential development could have on flora and fauna. We believe that the wording set out below would achieve an appropriate balance between maintaining access to river corridors in LLPAs and protecting sensitive habitats while still giving the necessary certainty to the plan policy, as sought by paragraph 39 of PPS 1. “Where riverbanks are included within Local Landscape Policy Areas, access may be required to the river corridor as part of the development proposals. Any access should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the flora and fauna of the river corridor.”

1.8.9 There was also disagreement amongst objectors about the purpose and

wording of the final paragraph in the headnote of ENV 2, which in the draft plan reads:

“Where proposals are within and/or adjoining a designated LLPA, a landscape buffer may be required to protect the environmental quality of the LLPA”.

1.8.10 Concern was expressed by an objector that the word “may” was not

sufficiently strong and suggested an inappropriate degree of flexibility. It was therefore suggested that the word “will” should be used instead, possibly followed by the word “normally”. Various other alternative wordings and phrasings were put forward by the Department, objectors and counter objectors including whether the phrase “landscape buffer” should be replaced by “landscape management proposals”. Ultimately no agreement was reached between the parties on what the final wording of the headnote should be. We have already indicated above, in paragraph 1.8.8, that we are satisfied that the phrase “may be required” is sufficient to alert prospective



developers of what is likely to be required when submitting a development proposal while allowing for the possibility that there may be instances where a buffer is inappropriate. As pointed out in paragraph 44 of PPS 1, it is incumbent on the Department, in considering any application, to have regard to any other material considerations as well as the development plan. We therefore see no need for the wording of the third paragraph in the policy headnote to be changed.

1.8.11 The explanatory text in paragraph 6.4.3 (Vol 1 P55) indicates that the

Department will consider the use of Tree Preservation orders (TPOs) where trees contribute significantly to visual amenity in an LLPA or where trees are considered under threat from development. We see nothing ambiguous in the phrasing of this paragraph but we do not accept the argument of the objector who, in drawing comparison with Conservation Areas, sought the automatic use of TPOs. Not all trees are worthy of protection. The designation of TPOs is a discretionary power and one that should be used on the basis of particular and local circumstances. We do not support this objection.

1.8.12 An objector requested that reference to Listed Buildings should be explicitly

stated in the main policy box of ENV 2. However, as the objector acknowledges, paragraph 6.4.5 (Vol 1 P55) identifies Listed Buildings as one of the key features within LLPAs, as does paragraph 2.23 of PPS 6. This is reflected in various designations in the District Proposals, which include references to Listed Buildings. Clearly they are recognised as an important part of the character of individual LLPAs. Listed Buildings also have statutory protection in their own right. We see no need for the policy headnote to be changed to accommodate this request.


The second paragraph in the policy headnote to ENV 2 should be amended to read:

“Where riverbanks are included within Local Landscape Policy Areas, access may be required to the river corridor as part of the development proposals. Any access should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the flora and fauna of the river corridor.”

The third paragraph in the policy headnote to ENV 2 should be

amended to read:

“Where proposals are within and/or adjoining a designated LLPA, a landscape buffer may be required to protect the environmental quality of the LLPA”.



Objections to Policy ENV 3: Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance

1.8.13 Draft policy ENV 3 was prepared in the context of PPS 2: Planning and Nature

Conservation, which was published in June 1997. Paragraph 60 of that document indicated that in addition to Local Nature Reserves and Wildlife Refuges other sites of potential local nature conservation importance (SLNCIs) could come to light when countryside assessments were being carried out. Paragraph 60 went on to state that such sites should be formally identified in a development plan and that the plan should set out specific planning proposals to be applied to development proposals on those sites. It was within that policy context that draft policy ENV 3 proposed the designation of 209 SLNCIs across the plan area. The designations are listed within the Countryside Section of the District Proposals (Vol. 2) while Appendix 1C of the Countryside Assessment (Technical Supplement 10) sets out the reasons for the designations. Maps for the proposed designations are provided in the Maps Booklet (Vol. 3).

1.8.14 Objectors argued that there was no need for plan policy ENV 3 as the matter

was already addressed in regional planning policy. It was also argued that proposed regional policy NH 4, in draft PPS 2 (March 2011), was less restrictive than plan policy ENV 3. In July 2013 the Department issued PPS 2: Natural Heritage, replacing PPS 2: Planning and Nature Conservation. As the most recent expression of regional policy we must take PPS 2, as published in July 2013, into account. The role of Development Plans is set out in Section 4.0 of PPS 2. Paragraph 4.3 states that natural heritage features will normally be identified as part of the process of Countryside Assessment carried out in association with plan preparation. It goes on to state that local designations arising from the plan should be identified and policies brought forward for their protection and, where possible their enhancement, such as those for SLNCIs. We are satisfied that this approach of identifying SLNCIs through the Development Plan process follows that advocated in the earlier version of PPS 2 and the one followed through in the preparation of the draft plan.

1.8.15 Policy NH 4 of PPS 2 is titled Sites of Nature Conservation Importance –

Local. Local Nature Reserves and Wildlife Refuses are listed under NH 4 but we note that these are established by Districts Councils under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (NI) Order 1985 and under the Wildlife Order respectively. They are not, therefore, reliant on the development plan system to designate them. Policy NH 4 does not make any reference to SLNCIs. Policy NH 5 in PPS 2 is titled Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance and a number of examples of such elements are then listed in bullet form. From examining the wide variety of features identified in the SLNCIs listed in Appendix 1C in the Countryside Assessment (Technical Supplement 10 p 177-222) and in considering the evidence provided by NIEA Natural Heritage, we are not convinced that Policy NH 5 of PPS 2 covers all of the features to be found in some of the proposed SLNCIs. There is no specific reference to SLNCIs in NH 5. Accordingly we are satisfied that it is appropriate to retain Policy ENV 3 of the draft plan as it provides an overarching policy and one that gives effect to and allows environmental protection for the identified features of each SLNCI designation.



1.8.16 While some objectors expressed opposition to draft plan policy ENV 3, they failed to explain the reasons for their objection. We cannot give further consideration to such generalised and unsubstantiated objections. Objections that were largely expressions of opposition to specific SLNCIs or to the definition of their boundaries are site specific matters that will be addressed under the District Proposals.

1.8.17 The Department acknowledged that it did not have total knowledge of the

potential nature conservation significance of every site in the plan area and that there were likely to be other sites that merited SLNCI designation. We can consider arguments relating to additional designations, and the merits of those sites, only if these have been raised as site-specific issues. We agree with the Department that it is not practical to incorporate the full survey details for every site in the Plan due to space constraints.

1.8.18 An objector was concerned that the explanatory policy text in paragraph 6.5.4

(Vol. 1 P56) does not define more precisely what “exceptional” circumstances would justify development that would affect intrinsic nature conservation interests. We do not, however, consider it realistic to attempt to identify all possible scenarios in the plan. Such matters are best considered through the development management system. We have previously commented on the wishes of NGOs to have their role in matters such as safeguarding and promoting the importance of the natural environment recognised in the plan. Our position remains that what is most important is that the policies and proposals of the plan are immediately identifiable and not lost in a mass of supporting background information representing a diversity of interests and responsibilities.

1.8.19 The Department suggested that the words “adverse effect” in the policy

headnote to ENV 3 should be prefaced by the word “significant”. This suggestion was welcomed by one of the objectors and we note that Policy NH 4 of PPS 2 uses similar language in its headnote. We agree with the suggested amendment

Recommendation

We recommend that:

The policy headnote to ENV 3 should be amended to include the word “significant” as set out below:

“Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be liable to have a significant adverse effect on the intrinsic nature conservation interest of a designated Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance””

Objections to Policy ENV 4: Trees 1.8.20 Policy ENV 4 seeks to ensure that where development is likely to result in the

loss of trees and hedges or other features that contribute to the character of the landscape, provision is made for appropriate replacement planting and the



creation of new features. Limited arguments were presented in the majority of the objections made to the proposed policy. Accordingly our comments are also limited.

1.8.21 As part of its submission to the EIP the Department attached an addendum to

its written evidence, which it requested be substituted for the policy headnote and text accompanying ENV 4. The Department considered that the amended policy headnote and explanatory text provided a better explanation of the purpose and rationale of the proposed plan policy. However, the emphasis in the amendment is on the retention and protection of existing vegetation whereas the draft policy focuses on the replacement of vegetation as a result of development. In the absence of objections explicitly seeking a change in emphasis of the policy to reflect that now proposed by the Department we do not see how the revised policy could be adopted without further public consultation. We cannot therefore endorse the proposed revision to ENV 4.

1.8.22 We do not share the view of those who complain that the draft plan policy is

too restrictive or too vague. Nor do we agree that it would unnecessarily stifle development. Ultimately the type and form of any replacement planting, including species type, will be a matter best determined through the development management system. We conclude that the policy should remain unaltered.


No changes are made to ENV 4 as a result of these objections

Objections to Policy ENV 5: Development Adjacent to a Main River 1.8.23 A number of objectors opposed draft policy ENV 5 but did not go on to explain

how and why the policy was deemed to be unacceptable. Some suggested that other planning policies covered this issue but failed to identify what those policies were. Others claimed that the policy was too vague or too restrictive but did not elaborate on how these matters could be addressed. We have difficulty trying to anticipate what was in the minds of these objectors and cannot therefore consider those matters further.

1.8.24 Different objectors expressed concern that the buffer strip proposed in the

policy headnote to be kept free from development was not sufficiently defined and that the wording in the first criterion was not sufficiently robust. Particular concern was expressed about the need for a meaningful biodiversity strip along the River Bann Corridor from The Cutts to the Barmouth. In response to this concern the Department suggested an amendment to criterion 1 of the headnote so that it would read:

1. “A biodiversity strip of at least 10m from the edge of the river is provided

and accompanied with an appropriate landscaping management proposal.”



The suggested revision was welcomed by the objector and would, we believe, also address the concerns of other objectors seeking greater protection being afforded to the main river corridors. We support the suggested amendment.

1.8.25 Some objectors expressed concern that Policy ENV 5 would compromise the

working functions of Coleraine Harbour by requiring public access to port facilities. However, we are satisfied that this issue is addressed by criterion 2 of the headnote which states that: “public access ...is provided where appropriate”.

1.8.26 Criterion 4 states that the proposal should not compromise, or impact on, the

natural flooding regime of the main river. We believe that the concern of an objector as to how this fits in with regional policy, as expressed in PPS 15: Planning and Flood Risk, could be addressed by adding in the words “and complies with the requirements of PPS 15”, at the end of the criterion.

1.8.27 Responding to concerns that ENV 5 does not adequately protect the

recreational and tourist potential of the Bann Corridor, the Department suggested adding an additional criterion to the headnote to read:

5. “Any development would not prejudice future opportunities to provide a

riverside walk” This suggestion was welcomed by the objector and we agree that it is an appropriate amendment to make.

Recommendations

We recommend that:

Criterion 1 of the policy headnote to ENV 5 should be amended to read:

“A biodiversity strip of at least 10m from the edge of the river is provided and accompanied with an appropriate landscaping management proposal.”

Criterion 4 of the policy headnote to ENV 5 should have the following phrase added onto it: “and complies with the requirements of PPS 15: Planning and Flood Risk”

Criterion 5 should be added to the policy headnote to ENV 5 and shall read:

“Any development would not prejudice future opportunities to provide a riverside walk”



Objections to Policy ENV 7: Areas of Significant Archaeological Interest 1.8.28 PPS 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage (PPS 6) states that

Development Plans, where appropriate, will designate areas of significant interest (ASAIs). PPS 6 indicates that ASAI designations are for the identification of particularly distinctive areas of the historic landscape. It indicates that such designations are likely to include a number of individual and interrelated sites and monuments, and that such designations are likely to be distinguished by their landscape character and topography. There is only one proposed ASAI designation in the draft plan and that focuses on Dunluce Castle and the surrounding area. The extent of the proposed designation is set out on Map 3/57 in the Map Booklet. While a number of objections made reference to draft policy ENV 7, none put forward reasoned arguments against the proposed ASAI designation. While we are satisfied that the policy should remain as drafted, the accompanying text to ENV 7 should make it clear that the policy relates specifically to the Dunluce ASAI.

1.8.29 Paragraph 2.7 of PPS 6 indicates that Areas of Archaeological Potential

(AAPs) will be highlighted in development plans, for the information (our emphasis) of prospective developers. PPS 6 explains that such areas are those within the historic cores of towns and villages where, on the basis of current knowledge, it is likely that archaeological remains will be encountered in the course of continuing development and change. The identification of AAP boundaries in certain settlements in Volume 2 of the plan and on settlement maps is therefore for information purposes only. Since they are not proposed designations of the draft plan we are not in a position to address objections made against AAPs in principle. Likewise we cannot assess objections made against specific AAPs.


No changes are made to ENV 7 as a result of these objections. The

explanatory text should, however, make it clear that Policy ENV 7 applies to Dunluce ASAI.

Objections to Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes

1.8.30 There is reference to Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes (HPGD) in the

Countryside and Coast section of the Plan Strategy and Framework (p100), the text in this section indicating that there are a number of parks, gardens and demesnes of special historic interest spread throughout the plan area. Paragraph 2.13 of PPS 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage, indicates that a register of parks, gardens and demesnes would be published in 1999 and arising from this paragraph 2.14 of PPS 6 directs development plans to identify those properties included in this register. The register was not published in 1999 but an interim list was produced in September 2004 and later revised in 2007 and is accessible on the NIEA Internet. The draft Plan, in line with paragraph 2.14 of PPS 6 identifies those parks, gardens and demesnes included in this list, designating them in the district proposals section (Volume 2) for each of the four council areas.



1.8.31 Although identified in the Plan, planning control in respect of these features of built heritage is provided by Policy BH 6 of PPS 6. The Designations in the District Proposals section of the plan are therefore necessary as a means of alerting developers, and other interested parties that the impact of any proposal on these historic landscapes or their setting will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and appeals. No additional statutory controls flow from their designation in the Plan and we do not agree with the objector who suggests that the plan should contain specific policies or protection criteria. We are satisfied that the designation of HPGDs within the Plan is consistent with regional policy as expressed in PPS 6 and that it does not place an undue burden on landowners or prospective developers. Objections seeking the removal of designations or amendment to their boundary definition will be considered in our assessment of site specific matters. The issue of different land ownerships within the defined area of an HPGD is not however a matter that undermines the merits of the designation.

1.8.32 The only comment we would make on HPGDs is that it would be more logical

to place the existing explanatory text in the Plan Strategy and Framework document within the section of the document that deals more specifically with issues of the Environment and Conservation.


The text on HPGDs, currently on pages 100/101 of Volume 1: Plan Strategy and Framework, should be placed at the end of the Environment and Conservation Section of the Strategy.



1.9. EDUCATION, HEALTH, COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL FACILITIES 1.9.1 The regional context for considering objections in relation to education, health,

community and cultural facilities is contained within the RDS 2035, PSRNI and DCANs 9 and 13. One of the aims of the RDS is to promote development which improves the health and well-being of communities; this includes ensuring that there is easy access to appropriate services and facilities. Policy PSU 1 in PSRNI advocates the allocation of sufficient land to meet the anticipated needs of the community in relation to such facilities. In acknowledging that the emphasis will be placed on utilising existing sites, it states that when new sites are required, land will be identified by individual site assessment or through the development plan process.

1.9.2 In their letter to the Commission dated 18th July 2011, the Department withdrew

Policy ECU 2: Protection of Community Facilities. It was also advised in this letter that the remaining policy in this section, Policy ECU 1: Education, Health, Community and Cultural Facilities, should be amended to have the phrase ‘In settlements’ added at the start of the policy headnote.

1.9.3 Policy ECU 1 is permissive in nature and states that planning permission will be

granted for such facilities provided they meet a number of listed criteria. In the Departmental evidence, they indicated that the Rural Strategy recognises that changing circumstances determine the requirement for land to meet such community needs. They stated, however, that when needs are identified, these do not always tie in with the formulation of a Plan and therefore, in order to address this gap and provide flexibility within settlements, Policy ECU 1 is necessary to facilitate community facilities on zoned land within settlements. Nevertheless, we agree with an objector that it is unnecessary for draft plan to contain such a ‘positive’ policy in respect of educational, health, community or cultural facilities if there is no general presumption against their approval. If such an approach were adopted, then NAP would have to contain such policies in relation to a number of other forms of development. The criteria listed under Policy ECU 1 are normal planning considerations which would be taken into account when determining any planning proposal and therefore their identification here is unnecessary.

Recommendation

We recommend that:

Policy ECU 1 is removed from the Plan.



1.10 OPEN SPACE, SPORT, OUTDOOR RECREATION AND RIGHTS OF WAY Objections to Policy OSR 1: Public Rights of Way and Permissive Paths 1.10.1 The single policy proposed in this section relates to Public Rights of Way and

permissive Paths. As the explanatory text with this text points out there are a number of nationally recognised paths within the plan area. Although the Ulster Way is specifically named, the policy also applies to all other public rights of way and permissive paths and the absence of other named paths from the text does not change that position. We are satisfied from the evidence presented to us that the ‘Ulster Way’ is the correct terminology.

1.10.2 An objector argued that Policy OSR 1 is flawed as rights of way are protected by

legal and civil law, that it will be difficult to implement and that not all rights of way and permissive paths have the same importance as the Ulster Way. While many of the paths may be protected by law we see nothing amiss in the draft plan’s desire to ensure that development proposals would not adversely impact on their character, function or recreational value. In that respect Policy OSR 1 is complementary to the legal protection of rights of way. We see no justification for making a hierarchical distinction between the importance of different pathways within the policy. That is a matter for the development management system to assess and determine in applying the policy. Since other objections to this policy were general in nature and unsubstantiated we do not agree with objectors that the policy should be removed from the plan.

Objections to Open Space Provision 1.10.3 The draft Plan contains no polices to specifically direct the provision of open

space, sport and outdoor recreation facilities. Such matters are addressed through regional policy in the form of PPS 8. In the interest of consistency, and in line with paragraph 4.11 of PPS 8, all major areas of public open space, including recreational pitches, located within the proposed development limits should be identified on the settlement maps for information purposes and we recommend so accordingly. We agree with the Department that it is neither practical nor feasible to identify all open space and pitches located in the countryside, as requested by one objector. As paragraph 4.11 of PPS 8 makes clear, such facilities are protected by Policy OS 1 in PPS 8, regardless of whether they are on plan maps. We do not agree with those objectors who argued that areas of open space adjoining proposed settlement limits should necessarily be included within those limits. Objections to the definition of specific areas of open space will be considered when we address the district proposals.

1.10.4 In response to a general argument that there is a shortage of new open space

zonings, the Department acknowledged that, measured against the National Planning Fields Association (NPFA) standard, there is a shortfall of Outdoor Sport Space in Portrush and Portstewart to the order of 5.90 ha and 6.74 ha respectively. Balanced against this there is a surplus of Outdoor Playing Space across the plan area. The Department also acknowledged that there is an unbalanced distribution in some settlements, particularly Coleraine and Limavady. Given that the Councils are primarily responsible for the provision of open space, the Department stated within Technical Supplement 6 that they are working with the local Councils to address any shortfalls. Given the relatively small deficits



that are involved, we accept that the Department could address this through the proposed open space zonings, the requirement of open space as part of the proposed Key Site Requirements on zoned land and by requiring that such a provision is provided within new residential developments as part of the development management process.

1.10.5 It was requested that public open space should be accessible by pedestrians and

not just located at out of town locations which can only be accessed by private transportation. Since no specific examples were provided to support this objection we cannot consider it further.

1.10.6 A concern was raised that open space policy is being applied without flexibility in

relation to Housing Executive estates. Specifically, the objector requested that the relationship between PPS 8 and PPS 12 be addressed in the proposals with a view to greater flexibility. A number of benefits were identified that could be accrued from the redevelopment of open space in such estates. At a strategic level, dNAP does not propose any new policies in relation to open space. Concerns in relation to the provisions of PPS 8 and PPS 12 are beyond the scope of this Examination. Specific concerns in relation to social housing are addressed within the strategic Community Housing Need/Affordable Housing section of this report and also within the relevant settlement sections where there are site specific issues.

1.10.7 Article 5 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 sets out the consultation

process when preparing a draft plan. The Department acknowledge that they did not directly consult the Countryside Access and Activity Network. Apart from their statutory consultees, what bodies the Department consult as part of the plan preparation process is at their own discretion. However, a Northern Area Plan Issues Paper was published in April 2002 in order to provide the opportunity for wide public participation in the preparation of the Draft Plan. Written responses were invited to be made to the Department by 6th August 2002 and more than 1100 representations were received. Public meetings and community workshops were held following the publication of the Issues Paper. We consider that the Countryside Access and Activity Network had sufficient opportunity to engage in this process if they so wished. We are satisfied that the consultation process undertaken meets the statutory consultation requirements.

1.10.8 The request to redraw the existing open space provision in Castlerock will be

dealt with in the district proposals section of the report and the matter raised in relation to the proposed cycle network in Ballymoney town will be dealt with within the transportation section of the report

Recommendation We recommend that All significant areas of existing open space, including recreational

pitches, which are located within proposed settlement development limits, are identified on the relevant maps for information purposes.



1.11. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Background 1.11.1 The background to the draft plan polices on Public Services and Utilities is set

out on page 67 of Volume 1 of the plan. The draft plan proposed two specific policies for the plan area. However, by letter dated 18 July 2011 the Department indicated that it wished to withdraw Policy PSU 1: Watercourse Management and Policy PSU 2: Ground and Surface Water Resources, explaining that these matters are now covered by regional planning policy in the form of PPS 15: Planning and Flood Risk, published in June 2006. The Department indicated at the EiP that it would update the text in this section to address the withdrawal of these policies and subsequent changes in regional policy.

1.11.2 As previously emphasised, there is no need to reiterate regional policy in a

development plan unless there is a local element that needs to be clarified. We agree with the Department that the planning system’s approach to development within a floodplain and for flood defences is clearly set out in PPS 15 and that there is therefore no longer a need for a bespoke policy in the plan in respect of such matters.

1.11.3 Some objectors expressed concern that there is a deficit of policies within the

draft plan to deal with waste management, water resources and drainage and the co-ordination of infrastructure in general. These issues are considered below

Waste Management 1.11.4 The RDS 2035, through RG10, seeks to manage waste sustainably. Regional

policy on Planning and Waste Management is set out in PPS 11, published in December 2002. Paragraph 1.4 in PPS 11 highlights how the framework for the sustainable management of waste is set out in the Waste Management Strategy (WMS). This provides the framework for the preparation by District Councils of Waste Management Plans (WMPs). WMPs set out plans for the collection, treatment and disposal of controlled waste in their respective areas. The NAP plan area falls within the North West Region Waste Management Group who have prepared a Waste Management Plan to ensure that there is the required infrastructure to facilitate the development and implementation of sustainable waste management practices. Paragraph 1.11 of PPS 11 states that WMPs establish the need for particular types of facilities, set out site selection criteria and may identify potential locations. PPS 11 provides various planning policies which establish the main planning considerations that the Department state that they will take into account in assessing proposals for the development of facilities for the management of waste and in the assessment of development proposals in the vicinity of existing or approved waste management facilities. Given that the current planning process requires that developers demonstrate that their proposed facilities meet the required need, as established in the WMP, the Department is content that there is no need to promote or control proposals outside of regional policy or beyond the WMP. Little evidence was provided by the objectors to dispute this conclusion. Given the regional policy provisions that are in place, and the presence of a waste



management plan prepared for the area, we are satisfied that there is no need for further policies to be introduced into the draft plan.

Water Resources, Drainage and the Provision of Infrastructure 1.11.5 At the EIP, assurances were given by the Department that in identifying land

considered suitable for development careful consideration had been given to the adequacy of infrastructure to service that land. Although development plans and proposed zonings do not confer planning permission, we accept that the Department has tried to identify sites for development which do not present insurmountable development challenges. At present, the Department does not consider that there are any ‘hotspots’ within the Plan area where sewerage facilities are at an over-capacity level. In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary we are satisfied that any site specific issues or difficulties can be dealt with by the development management process and see no need for a bespoke plan policy.

Windfarm Development 1.11.6 Post publication of the draft plan, PPS 18: Renewable Energy and its

accompanying Best Practice Guidance were published in August 2009. The planning policies contained within PPS 18 set out the main considerations when assessing proposals for renewable energy, including those involving wind energy. Paragraph 4.13 states that the landscape and visual effects of particular renewable energy development will vary on a case by case basis according to the type of development, its location and the landscape setting of the proposed development. A SPG ‘Wind Energy Development in Northern Ireland’s Landscapes’, which is to be taken into account in assessing all wind turbine proposals, identifies landscape characteristics that may be sensitive to wind turbine development. This document provides guidance on the landscape and visual analysis process and gives an indication of the type of development that may be appropriate. We, therefore, consider that there is sufficient regional policy guidance available to guide developers and given that each case will be assessed on its own merits, there is no need for a bespoke policy in the draft plan.


No changes are made to the plan in respect of the above objections.



1.12.0 LIGNITE and MINERALS Background 1.12.1 The background to the proposed draft plan polices on minerals is set out on

page 70 of Volume 1 of the plan. It identifies the mineral resources within the plan area as being sand and gravel, hardrock, lignite and peat. The draft plan proposed two specific policies in relation to minerals. Policy MIN 1 sought to protect the extensive lignite resource within Ballymoney District while Policy MIN 2 related to hydrocarbon extraction. In tandem with these policies the draft plan proposed Designation COU 15, identifying the geographical extent of the lignite resource area within which Policy MIN 1 would apply, and Designation COU 16 identifying environmentally sensitive areas wherein constraints should apply to the extraction of minerals. The proposed designations were identified on the relevant District Maps.

1.12.2 By letter dated 18 July 2011, the Department acknowledged that there was an

information deficit on mineral resources in the plan area and accordingly withdrew Designation COU 16: Areas of Constraint on Mineral Development. The same letter also stated that Policy MIN 2 Natural Mineral Reserves-Hydrocarbon Extraction was incorrectly drafted and that the wording of the policy headnote should be amended to refer to ‘exploration’ rather than ‘exploitation’. Our consideration of objections to MIN 2 is made within the context of this amendment.

1.12.3 At the EiP, in October 2011, the Department withdrew Policy MIN 1-Protection

of the Lignite Resource. As a consequence, the very large numbers of objection to MIN 1 are no longer before us. The Department did not, however, withdraw Designation COU 15 and there is a multiplicity of objections that are fundamentally opposed to the identification and protection of a lignite resource area, to its impact, its status and its extent. Other objections of a more general nature, relating to matters such as the extraction of minerals in general and of sand from beaches, also remain before us.

Objections to COU 15

1.12.4 A Lignite Resource Area is already identified in the extant NEAP 2002. The

draft plan designation COU 15 proposes to essentially retain that definition but with some revisions to take account of updated survey work commissioned by DETI. Thus it is proposed to extend the reserve area slightly to the NE and to exclude those areas of the reserve that fall within the SDL of Ballymoney due to existing extensive surface development. Given this pragmatic approach to exclude lands within the SDL of Ballymoney we endorse the Department’s indication at the EIP that similarly affected lands within the SDL’s of Stranocum and Dunaghy should likewise be excluded from the defined area in COU 15.

1.12.5 COU 15 defines the geographical extent of the lignite resource but as a

designation it does not set out how development proposals within it should be assessed. It was therefore argued by some objectors that, following withdrawal of draft plan policy MIN 1, designation COU 15 would no longer serve any real purpose. However, as the Department pointed out at the EIP, regional plan policies on minerals, as expressed in the Planning Strategy for Rural Northern



Ireland (PSRNI), remain in place. In this context Policy MIN 5 of the PSRNI places limits on surface development that would prejudice future exploitation of valuable mineral reserves such as lignite. MIN 5 of the PSRNI also indicates that where valuable mineral resources such as lignite are identified, policy areas will be defined in development plans.

1.12.6 The Department’s stance that the extant policies of the PSRNI should be

applied within COU 15 was questioned by objectors present at the EIP. It was argued that this position was at odds with correspondence from the Minister for the Environment in June and September 2011, which indicated that the DOE would give significant weight to all policies in PPS 21 over policy MIN 1 when assessing applications for development within Designation COU 15. The letters go on to suggest that this approach would be monitored over a two year period and reviewed on the evidence gathered. The objectors’ argument, however, overlooks the fact that policy MIN 1 was still in place when the Minister wrote his correspondence. MIN 1 has now been withdrawn.

1.12.7 PPS 21 sets out the main planning considerations in assessing proposals for

development in the countryside. Published in its final form in June 2010, PPS 21 superseded many of the polices contained within the PRSNI. However, the Preamble to PPS 21 does not identify the MIN policies of the PSRNI as amongst those that it is to take precedence over. Paragraph 5.0 of PPS 21 states that development proposals must be assessed “against all planning policies and all other material considerations that are relevant to it”. Following the withdrawal of plan policy MIN 1, it is clear to us that the mineral policies of the PSRNI remain as operational planning policy and that such policy is a material consideration in assessing any development proposals within proposed designation COU 15. Contrary to any impression that may have been gained by objectors, the weight to be attached to policies within PPS 21 versus PSRNI cannot be determined in advance of assessing a particular development proposal. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any ambiguity, it is imperative that the text of COU 15 spells out clearly the regional planning context that is to be applied to development proposals within designation COU 15.

1.12.8 Proposed designation COU 15 does not, contrary to the concern expressed by

many objectors, signal or authorise the immediate exploitation of the lignite resource. Rather, its primary purpose is to preserve the resource in the event that there should, in future, be difficulty in accessing external energy sources. Such an approach is consistent with The Strategic Energy Framework for Northern Ireland 2010, which acknowledges the strategic importance of lignite reserves and the value of fuel diversity. As the Department pointed out, more suitable technologies to exploit the reserve may develop in the future. Regardless of the proposed designation, any specific proposal to exploit the resource would require various consents. That consent regime would involve widespread public consultation and be subject to rigorous environmental assessment. The numerous concerns raised by objectors about the possible impact that exploitation of lignite could have on human health, wildlife and the wider environment are all material matters that would have to be fully and carefully considered and weighed into the decision making process accordingly.



1.12.9 Various other arguments were presented against COU 15, many of which are repetitive and of a very general and undefined nature. No substantive or persuasive evidence was presented that the designation would jeopardise the growth of the area and its community, result in out-migration, affect land values or result in planning blight. Given that the area identified by the designation has been established following detailed survey work, there is nothing to say that the expansion of the designated area from that previously identified in NEAP will set a precedent for future extensions. Calls to have the designation removed to relieve worried residents were not backed up by substantive evidence. The removal of the designation would not alter the fact that a substantial lignite reserve exists. No firm evidence was presented to demonstrate why those with planning approvals within the area are unable to implement them, while calls for compensation fall outside the remit of this particular process.

1.12.10 Whilst almost all representations sought the removal of designation COU 15

one objector requested that it be designated as an Area of Constraint on Mineral Development (ACMD). Policy MIN 3 in PSRNI states that for visual, conservation or other reasons, areas required to be protected from mineral development will be identified as ACMDs in development plans. Within such sensitive areas, there would be a presumption against the granting of planning permission for the extraction and/or processing of minerals. In the absence of any substantive reasoning to support this line of reasoning we are not persuaded that this objection should be supported.

1.12.11 While we fully acknowledge the wide ranging nature and extent of objections

made against COU 15 we do not accept the argument that the Department are imposing their own view of protecting the resource over that of the widespread interests of the people within Northern Ireland. The lignite reserve is a strategic national resource. Demarcating the area ‘for information purposes only’, as suggested by some, would do little to safeguard the protection of the resource.

Objections of a General Nature.

1.12.12 Paragraph 10.4.1 in the draft plan highlights problems associated with the

small-scale removal of sand from certain North Coast beaches. A number of objectors expressed concern that while this matter is highlighted in the draft plan there is no specific policy to prevent it continuing. At the EIP, agreement was reached between the Department and attending objectors that existing policy commitments should be clarified. The following additional text to paragraph 10.4.3 was put forward:

“In accordance with Policy MIN 1 of the PSRNI, decisions on applications for mineral extraction will be made with regard to the preservation of natural features of the landscape, which include the coastal zone. Any application will be subject to rigorous assessment to avoid any significant adverse impacts on ecology, shoreline stability and the environmental amenity of these areas in accordance with PPS 2. The Department will continue to use its enforcement powers where unauthorised extraction takes place”.



We agree that it is appropriate to add the above text. We are not convinced, however, that further amendments are required to the effect that reference should be made to ‘direct and indirect impacts’ and ‘cumulative effects of the extraction’. Such matters appear to be logical considerations for the development management process, without having to be stated within the amended version of Paragraph 10.4.3. Given the suggested addition to Paragraph 10.4.3 outlined above, it is unnecessary for the word ‘prohibit’ to replace ‘to control’ within the existing text.

1.12.13 With the withdrawal of designation COU 16 we do not accept the argument that

Section 10 of the draft plan is disproportionately weighed in favour of environmental protection and nor do we concur that the plan has failed to take account of prevailing regional policy. We do, though, agree with the objector who points out that paragraph 10.4.5 should refer to the mineral policies of the PRSNI in general rather than to MIN 3 specifically, since the MIN policies of the PSRNI deal with all forms of mineral extraction. No substantive or persuasive evidence was provided to justify the request for the inclusion of a policy discouraging the extraction of peat resources in general. The impact of the WWI munitions dump at Beauforts Dyke on the coastline of the Plan area is beyond the remit of this process.

1.12.14 A number of generic concerns were expressed about Policy MIN 2 but it is not

clear from the limited nature of the comments made what was in the mind of the objectors. As highlighted above, the scope of the policy is to be amended to deal only with the ‘exploration’ of reserves. Consideration of the short and long-term economic benefits and environmental impacts of exploiting a natural oil or gas resource would be a material consideration to be weighed when deciding any specific proposal. As stated within the supportive text of Policy MIN 2, each case would have to be assessed on its own merits. We do not consider it necessary for the supporting text of Policy MIN 2 to refer to the Government’s aim to reduce hydrocarbon use as this is a matter for regional policy. We are therefore not persuaded that there is a need for Policy MIN 2 to make a specific reference to such a consideration.

Recommendation:

We recommend that:

The following text should be added to paragraph 10.4.3 of the plan: “In accordance with Policy MIN 1 of the PSRNI, decisions on applications for mineral extraction will be made with regard to the preservation of natural features of the landscape, which include the coastal zone. Any application will be subject to rigorous assessment to avoid any significant adverse impacts on ecology, shoreline stability and the environmental amenity of these areas in accordance with PPS 2. The Department will continue to use its enforcement powers where unauthorised extraction takes place”.



Paragraph 10.4.5 should be amended to state that: “Proposals for extraction of all minerals will be determined in accordance with prevailing regional planning policy, currently set out in the MIN policies of the PSRNI”

In the policy headnote of MIN 2 the word ‘exploitation’ should be

replaced by the word ‘exploration’;

The extent of designation COU 15 should be amended to exclude from it all land that falls within the defined settlement limits of Dunaghy and Stranocum;

Explanatory text should be added to Designation COU 15 to specify

the regional planning policy to be applied within the designated area.



1.13. TRANSPORTATION

Background 1.13.1 The background to the draft plan polices on Transportation is set out on page

74 of Volume 1 of the plan. The draft plan proposed eight specific policies for the plan area. However, by letter dated 19 April 2011 the Department indicated that taking account of updated regional policy in the form of the revised PPS 3 (February 2005) it wished to withdraw the following draft plan policies:

Policy TRA 1: Rural Route Protection Policy TRA 3: Rural Road Improvement Schemes

Policy TRA 5: Road Schemes and Development

Policy TRA 6: Public Transport, Walking and Cycling

Policy TRA 7: Protection of the A26 Junction with A44 (Cloughmills) Park

and Ride/Park and Share Site 1.13.2 With the withdrawal of these policies the remaining objection issues are

confined to Policies TRA 2, TRA 4 and TRA 8, and to objections on a variety of general transport issues as addressed below.

Policy TRA 2: Rural Route Protection 1.13.3 It was argued that in withdrawing Policy TRA 1 that all protection in the Plan for

lands included in the proposals listed under Proposal TRA 2 was also, by default, withdrawn by the Department. Policy AMP 4 in PPS 3, however, states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would prejudice the implementation of a transport scheme identified in a development plan. Given that protection is now given to such land in regional policy, there is no need to have a duplicate policy within the Plan. The road schemes contained within TRA 2 are therefore unaffected by the Department’s withdrawal of Policy TRA 1. Accordingly the policy should remain in place. .

1.13.4 The current position of the transportation schemes listed in Proposal TRA 2 is

somewhat out of date. Some of the schemes have been completed while the evidence from the Department is that while some may no longer be feasible others have come forward in the intervening years. The opportunity should therefore be taken to provide the most up to date position with these schemes in the adopted plan. Objections to these proposals are not however within the remit of the Development Plan process and fall under the statutory provisions of the Roads (NI) Order 1993. Given that Paragraph 4.4 of the Department’s evidence states that the A2 Ballykelly Bypass is now part of the Strategic Road Improvement (SRI) Programme, it would also be appropriate to include this scheme in the list of the proposals even if the details of the route have changed. The objection claiming that the road improvement schemes would increase congestion was unsubstantiated with evidence



Policy TRA 4: Road Schemes and Development 1.13.5 According to the Department the three Rural Road Improvement Schemes

listed in Proposal TRA 4 have been delivered. Therefore there is no necessity to list these as proposals and there is no merit in commenting on objections or suggested conditions for these schemes. Concerns in relation to the limited nature of the road proposals, with calls for a comprehensive traffic management review and for other schemes to be included, are beyond the remit of the Plan and are issues to be addressed by DRD Roads Service. It has to be borne in mind that the plan is not a programme of works and does not have a capital works budget. Infrastructure improvements will be delivered in accordance with the Regional Transport Strategy, the Regional Strategic Transport Network Transport Plan and the Sub Regional Transport Plan.

Protected Routes 1.13.6 Objections were received in relation to the designation of a number of protected

routes. The protected routes are identified and protected by Policy AMP 3 in PPS 3 and as amended in Annex 1 of PPS 21. Policy AMP 3 sets out the policy tests within and outside settlement limits and specific proposals should be determined through the development management process accordingly. Paragraph 4.13 of PPS 3 states that development plans will list the Protected Routes in the plan area and indicate these on the plan maps for information purposes. We are satisfied that this has been done. Any alterations to the routes are matters for DRD and not for the Plan.

Integration of land use and transportation and protection of railway

services 1.13.7 Section 4.0 in PPS 3: Access, Movement and Parking (2005) and General

Principle 1 in PPS 13: Transportation and Land Use (2005) state that the integration of transportation policy and land use planning should be taken forward through the preparation of development plans and transport plans informed by transport studies. We are satisfied that this process has been followed through. Nevertheless an objector expressed concern that the draft plan did not make this sufficiently clear. In response the Department accepted at the Examination that they could have been more explicit in setting out how the Plan seeks to provide such integration. We consider that such an explanation would be beneficial for readers in order to clarify how the Department has promoted the integration of transportation and land use.

1.13.8 It is accepted that the Northern Corridor Railway plays a fundamental role, for

instance, in terms of integrating land use and ensuring balanced development and that there has been substantial investment in the system. At the Examination the Department agreed that they could make a positive reference to the railway system in the text and illustrate it on the associated map. The Department suggested that after the first sentence of Paragraph 11.1.1 that the following be stated:



‘The plan area benefits from an existing main railway network serving the hubs of Ballymoney, Coleraine and the town of Portrush. Continued investment in the railways is important for encouraging a modal shift from the motor car and for promoting the economic development of the North Coast’.

We consider that the suggested wording is appropriate and should be added into the text. As there is no requirement for the Department to illustrate the railway network in the Plan, this is a matter of discretion for the Department. Concern was raised in relation to the use of the term ‘non-core’ network within the Portrush transportation section (Paragraph 14.3, page 140). We agree with the Department that the use of this term is subsidiary to the main issue which is that of funding for Portrush’s Transport Centre.

1.13.9 Concern was expressed in relation to the lack of protection afforded by PPS 3

to existing railway lines. The wording of regional policy is not a matter that we can address. No evidence was provided to suggest that the existing rail services were in danger or likely to be so during the lifetime of the plan. If anything the evidence points to additional investment in rail services within the plan area in general, with improvements to park and ride facilities at stations such as Ballymoney. In any event specific policies for the protection of railways do not fall within the remit of the plan. A concern was raised that Map No.1-Overview does not illustrate the rail network whereas the protected routes are shown. Map No.1 states that the protected routes are illustrated for information only as required by Paragraph 4.13 in PPS 3. There is, however, no such requirement to illustrate the rail network. The request for further extension of the railway system is outside the remit of the Plan.

1.13.10 In terms of the objection expressing concern about the protection of disused rail

beds, it should be noted that Policy AMP 5 in PPS 3 provides regional policy protection, ensuring that their future re-use is not prejudiced. We accept that it would be inappropriate for the Plan to suggest specific proposals that did not have specific funding in place. In relation to the request for development opportunity sites in proximity to Coleraine bus and rail station, this is a matter that will be dealt with in the Coleraine site specific section of the report.

Car parking and Traffic Management in Coleraine 1.13.11 There is no specific plan policy for parking. However, reference is made in

paragraph 11.3 .16 to a Car Parking Strategy having been prepared for the Plan. It provides details in relation to existing parking provision, proposes a Strategy for dealing with policy issues and how the provision and its operation should be managed. In relation to the concern about parking to serve apartment development, whilst this is a matter for development management it should be noted that developers seeking planning permission will be required to demonstrate how their proposal will be serviced adequately.

1.13.12 The Northern Area Parking Strategy suggests that the total existing parking

space supply in Coleraine can cater for the current demand but that there is a need for its effective management. The Strategy acknowledges that there will be a projected overall shortfall in parking spaces in Coleraine town of approximately 350 made up from the long stay demand being displaced, as suggested, from the town centre and the shortfall in peripheral parking supply.



In order to meet the shortfall, the Strategy makes a number of recommendations including that 200 additional short stay spaces be provided at a suitable town-centre opportunity site and 100 additional long stay spaces be provided through the extension of existing car parks. The remaining shortfall, of approximately 50 spaces, is to come from the development of appropriate opportunity sites on the periphery of the town centre. It is also recommended that the parking situation in Coleraine be reviewed as part of Roads Service’s monitoring programme.

1.13.13 Concern was expressed that the parking strategy for Coleraine was based on

out-of-date information, however no substantive evidence was presented to demonstrate that this was the case. It was also stated there is an issue with short term parking provision in Coleraine and, specifically, that there is a reliance on the development of two sites by DSD. The Parking Strategy acknowledges that the preference is for short stay parking and that there is a need to manage the imbalance between short and long term parking by encouraging short term parkers to the town centre and regulating the provision of short stay on-street parking. Allowing for a supply cushion of 10%, the Parking Strategy anticipates that there will be sufficient short stay supply for the town centre if all existing spaces are targeted at that user group and a shortfall of 45 short stay spaces in the periphery. It is appreciated that whilst planning permission may have been granted for the DSD schemes, there could be an issue in relation to the funding of the proposals. The Department are, however, hopeful that the developments may eventually proceed and if so it is anticipated they could provide up to 1350 spaces. Although mechanisms are being utilised to encourage people not to bring their cars into the towns, it was acknowledged by the Department at the Examination that the use of on-street charging does not receive political support at present. It therefore cannot be relied upon to address the issue. Other specific proposals such as expanding the parking provision of the Railway Road car park, which it is hoped may deliver up to an additional 100 spaces, and managing the existing car parks through charging and time management, for example, may help to address the shortfall.

1.13.14 In order to address concerns in relation to a perceived shortage of supply and

to help businesses, suggestions were made by an objector that: two-hour free parking could be introduced; the ownership of the present car parks should be retained; a further floor could be added to an existing car park with provision made for the possibility of additional floors; Northern Ireland Tourist Board should be involved in the provision of car parking in the North Coast. These are matters for Roads Service and other bodies to consider as part of their on-going review and go beyond the remit of the Plan. Therefore, given the extent of the projected parking shortfall, the possibility of the DSD schemes proposed coming forward, the use of other mechanisms to manage the existing parking supply and the support in regional policy to control parking provision, the objections are not sustained.

1.13.15 Concern was also expressed about the absence of a comprehensive traffic

overview for Coleraine. We agree with the Department that any additional transportation schemes of the nature and scale suggested by the objector such as a new route into the town centre from the ring road and a third bridge over the River Bann are matters that go beyond the scope of the development plan process.




Proposal TRA 2 is updated to reflect the latest positions of the listed schemes;

Proposal TRA 2 includes reference to the proposed A2 Ballykelly Bypass;

Improvement schemes listed under Proposal TRA 4 that have been

implemented should no longer be referred to as ‘proposals’; The Department sets out more explicitly in the introduction to the

Transportation section how the Plan seeks to integrate transportation and land use;

The importance of the railway network in the plan should be

reinforced by the addition of the following text after the first sentence of Paragraph 11.1.1

‘The plan area benefits from an existing main railway network serving the hubs of Ballymoney, Coleraine and the town of Portrush. Continued investment in the railways is important for encouraging a modal shift from the motor car and for promoting the economic development of the North Coast’.



1.14. Rathlin Island

Background 1.14.1 As the RDS and the draft plan both acknowledge, Rathlin is unique as being

the only inhabited off-shore island in Northern Ireland. The challenges faced by such an island community are different from those on the mainland and the RDS recognises that there is a need for a co-ordinated approach to its development. This has already been progressed by the Ministerial Forum established by the Executive in 2010.

1.14.2 For the purpose of the RDS Spatial Framework Rathlin Island is regarded as

falling within the rural area. Accordingly, prevailing rural policy, as currently expressed in PPS 21, would apply to all development located outside the defined settlement limits of Church Bay. However, in recognising the unique circumstances of the island community the draft plan proposes a tailored policy in the form of Policy COU 9.

Objections to Policy COU 9 1.14.3 A number of the representations made against Policy COU 9 did not explain

the nature of the objection that was being made. In the absence of unsubstantiated arguments we are not in a position to consider such objections further.

1.14.4 Following discussions with Objectors involved at the EiP the Department

tabled the following agreed amendment to the wording of the policy headnote for COU 9:

“Planning permission will be granted for single dwellings for permanent residency on sites where there are significant remnants of a traditional home/wallstead and the applicant can demonstrate either; (1) A strong island connection; or

(2) That they will make a significant contribution to the economic and

social vitality of the island Any replacement dwelling that incorporates an ancillary element providing workshop accommodation for self employment may be acceptable in principle.

1.14.5 The proposed rewording of the policy headnote takes account of the objectors’

views to provide a more relaxed policy. The rewording will facilitate people who originally lived on the island but who moved away and wish to return to it again. It also allows for young people who want to make a positive contribution to the island to locate to the island. The supporting text to policy COU 9 should set out a clear explanation of the requirements and application of the policy. The Department indicated that such an example might include a teacher, post office manager, or nurse, that is, someone who needs to live on the island to provide a specific social or economic service. We support the



suggested rewording of Policy COU 9 and agree that such a bespoke policy is appropriate to the unique circumstances of life on Rathlin.

1.14.6 Other objections sought that wording such as ‘permanent island resident’ and

‘strong island connection’ should be more clearly defined in the policy. The definition of such phrases can in itself cause difficulties in the application of a policy. However, in the context of the suggested revised headnote we have already indicated in the preceding paragraph that the supporting text should spell out the applicability of the policy in such a way that it will assist both applicants and decision makers alike. Ultimately, it will be for the development management system to consider each proposal on its own merits.

1.14.7 The Department’s agreement to remove the final paragraph of the original

headnote relating to an occupancy condition, addresses the concerns of a number of objectors. We agree that a policy restricting the sale of homes would place an undue burden on encouraging people to settle on the island. We are satisfied that the other qualifying criteria suggested and agreed provide an appropriate policy test.

1.14.8 The island falls within an AONB, as stated in paragraph 5.2. Any development

proposal on the island is therefore subject to the consideration of this AONB designation. Furthermore, such proposals are also subject to regional policies as expressed in PPS 1, PPS 21, and PPS 6, which afford control for the redevelopment of vernacular buildings in the countryside. We see no need to amend policy COU 9 to duplicate policy provision for the redevelopment of vernacular buildings on Rathlin Island, as was suggested by some objectors. Nor is it necessary to make further reference to the AONB in the policy headnote. We do, however, agree with the Department that it is not appropriate to relax the policy on the island to allow the development of green field sites outside the SDL drawn up for Church Bay.

1.14.9 Policy COU 9 does not seek to control tourism related projects. The

Department in its letter dated 18 July 2011 to the Commission withdrew most of its bespoke plan policies for tourism, given the existence of other regional policy mechanisms. The objector provided limited evidence to justify why there should be a specific tourism policy for Rathlin. We do not recommend any specific tourism policy for Rathlin.

Objections Seeking a Local Plan for Rathlin

1.14.10 In March 2010 the Minister for the Department for Regional Development

announced that the Executive had introduced a ‘Policy for Rathlin Island’. The purpose of this policy is to develop a vibrant healthy Rathlin Community and increase the involvement of islanders in the development of policies and projects which improve the conditions for all of the people of the island, while protecting its environment. The policy document sets out a number of strategic aims and objectives for the future of the islands service and infrastructure. Whilst the island faces its individual challenges, these are not entirely linked to what planning policy can deliver for the island community but more to the overall future social and physical infrastructure of the island as set out in the DRD ‘Rathlin Island Policy’. The supporting text to Policy COU 9



should make reference to the existence of the DRD ‘Rathlin Island Policy’. We are, however, satisfied that the revised COU 9 policy addresses the unique circumstances of the island and that a separate Local Plan is not required for Rathlin.

Recommendations

We recommend that:

Policy COU 9 is reworded to read:

“Planning permission will be granted for single dwellings for permanent residency on sites where there are significant remnants of a traditional home/wallstead and the applicant can demonstrate either; (1) A strong island connection; or

(2) That they will make a significant contribution to the economic and

social vitality of the island Any replacement dwelling that incorporates an ancillary element providing workshop accommodation for self employment may be acceptable in principle.

The explanatory text to COU 9 sets out clearly the type of qualifying circumstances that are envisaged in points (1) and (2) of the amended policy headnote.



1.15.0 Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site Background and Context of Regional Policy 1.15.1 In 1986 the Giant’s Causeway was given approval by UNESCO for

designation as a World Heritage Site (WHS) and was added to the World Heritage List. World Heritage Sites are considered as being universally important, belonging to everyone in the world, irrespective of their territory or location.

1.15.2 The RDS (2035) sets out Regional Guidance for the conservation and

protection of our natural environment in RG 11. Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS 6): Planning Archaeology and the Built Heritage, states in paragraph 2.12 that: “Development Plans will identify World Heritage Sites and their settings and will normally include local policies or proposals to safeguard such areas”. Policy BH 5 of PPS 6 states that the Department will operate a presumption in favour of the preservation of World Heritage Sites. Paragraph 4.3 of PPS 6 makes clear that until such time as a new development plan was prepared for the area, development proposals within a 4 km radius of the WHS would be subject to particular scrutiny.

1.15.3 It is within the context of the advice set down in PPS 6 that the draft plan

proposed designations and policies to deal with development proposals at the Giants Causeway WHS itself, within what is defined as the distinctive landscape setting of the Giants Causeway and within a wider and more extensive area that is termed as the supportive landscape setting. These are set out in Policies COU 10, COU 12 and COU 14 and in Designations COU 11 and COU 13 respectively.

1.15.4 By letter dated 19 April 2011 the Department withdrew Policy COU 5:

Causeway Coast Countryside Policy Area, explaining that the publication of PPS 21 in June 2010 now took precedence over the policy provisions for existing and proposed Countryside Policy Areas. In its letter of 18 July 2011 the Department also withdrew Policy COU 14. In withdrawing COU 14 the Department made it clear that proposed Designation COU 13: The Supportive Landscape Setting of the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site remained a proposal of the plan.

1.15.5 As explained throughout our report, our consideration of objections must be

confined to those polices and designations that remain in the draft plan. Objections to the proposed plan policies and designations were expressed in the alternative, with some seeking their relaxation or removal and others arguing for more stringent or additional controls.

Objections to Policy COU 10: The Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site 1.15.6 In accordance with paragraph 2.12 of PPS 6, Map 5/68 of the plan illustrates

the location and extent of the designated WHS at the Giant’s Causeway. It is shown for information purposes only as the WHS designation is not a plan proposal. At the EiP the Department stated that the correct title for the WHS,



as set out on the World Heritage List, was “The Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site”. We agree that all references to the Giant’s Causeway WHS should be amended accordingly. The Department also indicated that it wished to substitute the word ‘supplemented’ for the word ‘superseded’ in the last sentence of paragraph 6.1, introducing the WHS. As this suggestion does not alter a specific policy or proposal in the plan we leave such changes in the plan’s text to the discretion of the Department.

1.15.7 The purpose of Policy COU 10 is to ensure that any development permitted

within the WHS is strictly controlled and limited to essential facilities for visitors. The policy also seeks to ensure that any development carried out would not be detrimental to the landscape or scientific interest of the site. The WHS is unique both in environmental and economic terms to Northern Ireland as a whole. It is therefore essential that the site is protected for the benefit of future generations, as well as today’s generation. Since publication of the draft plan the National Trust has developed and opened a visitor centre for the WHS site. Notwithstanding that the National Trust are custodians of the WHS, owning and managing the site and visitor centre, it is appropriate that planning policies are put in place to continue to protect the integrity of the designated WHS.

1.15.8 We do not accept or agree with the objector who sought removal of the policy

in favour of regional policy as expressed in Policy BH 5 of PPS 6. Regional policy, in the form of paragraph 2.12 of PPS 6, clearly directs development plans to identify World Heritage Sites and provide local policies or proposals to safeguard such areas. Policy BH 5 provides general protection in the form of a presumption in favour of the preservation of World Heritage Sites, but it does not offer the specific level of protection that COU 10 offers. We are satisfied that a bespoke plan policy to deal with the Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast WHS is both necessary and appropriate and provides the duty of care and protection sought in regional policy. Accordingly we do not agree with those objectors who argued that Policy BH 5 offers sufficient policy protection. Nor do we support the limited arguments presented by other objectors to COU 10 who sought undefined relaxations of the policy.

1.15.9 We are satisfied that the policy and explanatory text of COU 10 do not require

further refinement or strengthening, as argued by some objectors. A number of concerns expressed by one particular objector, seeking strengthening of the policy in general and the introduction of a Local Plan for the WHS, seem to us to be a response to the particular circumstances that were evident when the draft plan was first published. The previous Visitor’s Centre was destroyed by fire in 2000 and for some considerable period of time there was great uncertainty about the location and design of any replacement facilities as well as to who would be the provider and operator of any such facility. As noted above, a new visitor centre was opened in 2012 by the National Trust. Given the policy protection afforded to the WHS by COU 10 we see no need for a separate Local Plan. We conclude that Policy COU 10 should be retained and should not be altered or amended.



Objections to Designation COU 11: The Distinctive Landscape Setting of the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site

1.15.10 Paragraph 4.3 of PPS 6 notes that the setting of the WHS had not been

formally identified by the Department when PPS 6 was published (1999). Accordingly PPS 6 stated that as an interim measure, and until such time as a new development plan was prepared for the area, development proposals within a 4 km radius of the site would be subject to particular scrutiny. The identification of a distinctive landscape setting for the WHS, as illustrated on Map 5/68 and proposed for designation by COU 11, now provides a definitive area for the distinctive landscape setting of the WHS. This therefore fulfils the requirement placed on the draft plan by paragraph 2.12 of PPS 6. In its written evidence the Department indicated that COU 11 was in effect a Special Countryside Area (SCA). PPS 21, in paragraph 4.4, refers to the designation of an SCA through the development plan system. However, PPS 21 post dates the publication of the draft plan and it would not be appropriate to seek to bring forward an SCA designation at this late stage of the process. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the COU 11 designation is a bespoke plan designation and has been formulated in accordance with PPS 6.

1.15.11 A number of very general objections were made to the extent of the proposed

designation. While some referred to specific sites, which we will address when considering site specific objections, most did not explain why the definition of the distinctive landscape area set out on Map 5/68 was inappropriate or what changes should be made to it, other than the removal of COU 11 from the plan. In the absence of such reasoned arguments we cannot give further consideration to these unsubstantiated or unjustified objections. We conclude that the designation proposed by COU 11 should stand and that no changes to the plan should arise from these objections.

Objections to Policy COU 12: The Distinctive Landscape Setting of the

Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site 1.15.12 Policy COU 12 seeks to impose a number of restrictions on the form and scale

of development that will be permitted within proposed designation COU 11. Various objections expressed opposition to the limitations on development proposed by COU 12. A number of those who sought a relaxation of the policy requirements did not explain what a revised policy should say. We cannot give further consideration to such undefined objections. More specific arguments are considered below.

1.15.13 Several objectors suggested that the first exception of Policy COU12 should

be relaxed to refer to tourist proposals “in general” without any reference to scale, and that such proposals should be subject to normal planning and environmental criteria, relevant tourism policies and be judged on their own merits. The same objectors also sought the addition of a further exception to Policy COU12 to permit clustering, infilling and rounding off as per paragraph 21.6 of the extant NEAP 2002. We considered the general argument about clustering and paragraph 21.6 earlier in our report, when we addressed objections on Policy SET 1, concluding that the policy context in the draft plan is very different and that paragraph 21.6 should not be incorporated into the



replacement plan. Adding development to the existing clusters in this area, such as at The Aird, would open up more opportunities to future erode the character and importance of the Distinctive Landscape Setting for the WHS. We recommend no change to the wording of policy arising from these objections.

1.15.14 Having endorsed the principle of the COU 11 designation, as well as Policy

COU 10, we agree with the Department that it is necessary and appropriate to seek to limit both the amount and scale of development within the landscape setting of the WHS. As other objectors have pointed out, the impact and scale of development that has occurred in recent decades within the area of the distinctive landscape setting is striking and readily apparent. We do not agree that tourism proposals in general should be permitted but rather that such facilities should be limited to those necessary to meet the direct needs of visitors to the WHS, as stipulated in criterion 1 of COU 12.

1.15.15 An objector argued for the removal of the word ‘exceptionally’ at the start of

exception in COU12 but did not expand on the reasons for doing so. The same objector suggested adding an additional criterion to COU 12 to read:

“Exceptions will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that there is a need for a facility that can only be sited at the proposed location, is of international significance and is capable of being satisfactorily integrated into the landscape".

It strikes us that the wording being suggested here is intended to facilitate a specific development proposal and does rest easily with the other exceptions identified in COU12. We do not endorse this suggestion.

1.15.16 Another objector raised concerns that the wording of COU 12 meant that

buildings other than dwellings, such as farm buildings that required consent, would be prohibited. The objector also expressed concern the policy would make it impossible to extend or alter established commercial buildings, yards, churches, community halls and car parks. It should be noted that the proposed policy does not seek to remove Permitted Development rights, as set out in the Planning General Development Order (GDO). However, other types of buildings and uses already exist in this area and to address this we recommend the deletion of the word ‘dwellings’ in exception 2) of COU 12 and its replacement with the word ‘buildings’. The supportive text to COU 12 should be amended to reflect the suggested rewording of the policy headnote. While the settlement of Lisnagunogue sits within the distinctive landscape setting of the WHS development, proposals within the SDL will not be subject to the specific limitations imposed by COU 12.

1.15.17 In contrast to those objecting to the restrictions proposed by COU 12 some

objectors argued that further limitations were required. The requirements of the policy are set out in the policy headnote and it would not be appropriate to add additional tests or requirements into the text supporting the policy, as suggested by some. It is not practical to provide a definition for every phrase used in supporting text. Several objectors seemed to argue that the policy should completely restrict the development of any further tourist facilities within the landscape setting of the WHS. We believe though that the requirements in




COU 12 impose strict and appropriate limitations. We conclude that, subject to the amendment recommended in paragraph 1.16.16 above, no other changes should be made to COU 12.

Objections to Designation COU 13: The Supportive Landscape Setting of

the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site 1.15.18 Designation COU 13 proposes what is described in the draft plan as a

secondary area of landscape setting to the WHS. Map 5/68 shows an extensive area of land lying to the west, east and south of Designation COU 11, stretching along the coastline from east of Portrush to east of Ballintoy and extending inland to include the settlements of Ballytober, Portballintrae and Bushmills. Rathlin Island also falls within the proposed designated area.

1.15.19 The withdrawal by the Department of COU 14, setting out specific policy

limitations within COU 13, means that the generic policies of PPS 21 would apply within the designated area. Given that the same PPS 21 polices also apply within the open countryside over the remainder of the plan area we see little logic in seeking to retain designation COU 13. We therefore agree with those objectors who argued that this designation is unnecessary. Accordingly we recommend that Designation COU 13 be removed from the plan.


The World Heritage Site is heretofore referred to and titled as: “The Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site”

In exception 2 of COU 12 the word “buildings” is substituted for the word “dwellings” in the first and last sentences. The explanatory text below the policy headnote should be adjusted to take account of this change;

Designation COU 13 is removed from the plan.

Commission Reference: 2010/D001 PLANNING · PDF fileCommission Reference: 2010/D001 . PLANNING...

Documents

Transcript of Commission Reference: 2010/D001 PLANNING · PDF fileCommission Reference: 2010/D001 . PLANNING...