Planning permission refused for 37-home development in Toome following 176 objections
A proposed residential development of 37 new homes at Loughview Drive, Toomebridge, was refused permission at a recent meeting of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council’s Planning Committee following 176 objections.
The proposal is for nine detached houses, 18 semi-detached houses and 10 apartments, landscaping and access roads on land 90 metres from St Oliver Plunkett Church.
The Mayor of Antrim and Newtownabbey, Councillor Henry Cushinan, told the meeting that the” level of local objection is so strong” he felt “compelled” to support the objectors.
He reported that 175 letters of objection have been received by the local government authority’s planning department and a petition with more than 1,000 signatures was presented but this was rejected on a “technicality”. An additional letter of objection was presented to the council ahead of the meeting.
Cllr Cushinan explained the history of the site saying that a “grand” house and garden was bequeathed to the church to be used for the benefit of the parish, but it fell into disrepair and the property was demolished with the rubble being used to construct the chapel car park.
He claimed that the “majority of people in the parish” are opposed to the development proposal.
The first citizen added: “My objection is solely with this proposal. It is the wrong scheme in the wrong place. The amenity of the residents of Loughview Drive, a cul-de-sac of 11 homes, will be massively impacted by 37 new premises.”
He went on to say that the residents of Carlane Crescent and surrounding area have used the open space for recreation, adding that this public amenity space will be lost.
Community Centre
“Local people believe that a community centre is a necessary local facility and would like to see part of this site used for that purpose,” he stated.
Antrim SDLP Councillor Roisin Lynch asked the mayor if he believed there is a need for further housing in Toome.
“Without doubt, there is need for more housing in Toome and there are a number of schemes currently underway,” Cllr Cushinan replied.
Ballyclare DUP Cllr Jeannie Archibald-Brown asked if the mayor would be concerned about potential parking issues in the vicinity.
Cllr Cushinan commented that access would be through the Loughview Drive estate and additional cars would “create a problem”.
Objector Una Johnston, a community worker, stressed that there is “absolutely no objection to housing being built”, noting that there are “at least 38 people” on the local housing list for social housing.
“The issue is the loss of this green field site and the permanent restriction that this will place on any further development for community, church or schools in our very growing village and surrounding area,” she said.
She urged the Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council Planning Committee to consider the wider issues of the future of the village.
Dermot Monaghan, planning agent, described the proposal as “a high quality development that respects important features of the natural and built environment” and includes “substantial areas of public and private open space and house types that reflect the character of built development in the village”.
He went on to say that there will be “no shortage of parking” with two spaces for each house and 14 “unassigned spaces” for apartments as well as “a lot of on-street parking”.
Canal Walk
He reported that approximately 20 per cent of the site will be public open space with a link to the Toome Canal walk. He maintained that it would “improve open space in Toome”.
Macedon Ulster Unionist Cllr Robert Foster pointed out that a committee report says that there is “a deficiency of 11 spaces” for parking and it is also described as “sub-standard and inadequate”.
Mr Monaghan replied that the report “talks in relation to parking standards of the maximum number of spaces that you should provide”.
However, he stated that this is “not a target that you have to reach” and he added the case officer is “quite happy with the level of parking provision provided”.
He stressed: “There is no parking shortage here. The guidance is guidance, The standards aren’t set in stone. The level of parking proposed is more than adequate. A refusal reason based on parking would be outrageous.”
Cllr Lynch asked if a community consultation has been held over this piece of land. Mr Monaghan said that he was not aware of a community consultation, commenting that the proposal would fall below the threshold for a major development for which a community consultation must be held.
Cllr Lynch asked if the planning agent was aware of the level of local objection and local “discontent”. He replied: “Not before the application was submitted.”
In response to a query from Cllr Foster, head of planning Barry Diamond said that the proposed parking provision would meet the requirement for the development overall.
It was proposed by Threemilewater DUP Cllr Sam Flanagan and seconded by party colleague Macedon Cllr Ben Mallon that planning permission be granted. Four members voted in favour with seven against and one abstention and the proposal fell.
It was then proposed by Cllr Foster and seconded by Threemilewater Alliance Alderman Tom Campbell that planning permission be refused due to “inadequate NI Water infrastructure and no indication that the sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) or sewerage would be adopted, inadequate parking facilities and loss of open space”.
Seven members voted in favour with four against and one abstention.
Michelle Weir, Local Democracy Reporter