Access granted through Templepatrick estate, despite objections

Planning permission was recommended for the new access point for future development through Broadacres.

Some locals have said they were not informed about the demolition of a dwelling on the site, while other residents claim that their gardens have been included in part of the plans. Braidwater Ltd has proposed the new access to serve ‘future development lands’ at and surrounding Boulderstone House, 912 Antrim Road, Templepatrick. The application site is located at lands located between 51 and 53 Broadacres and 30m west of No. 912 Antrim Road, at the end of a residential cul-de-sac within the Broadacres residential development.

A report before the Planning Committee of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council said: “Land to the north, south and west comprises residential development consisting mainly of single storey detached bungalows within Broadacres residential development while lands to the east comprises a large undeveloped piece of land with The Rabbit Hotel and Retreat located approximately 30m east of the site.”

There were no objections from statutory consultees, but nine neighbouring properties were notified of the application, and 24 letters of objection were received. The concerns included the potential for future housing development, that Broadacres cannot accommodate additional traffic, lack of consultation with neighbours from the developer and that the development should use the entrance off Antrim Road. There were also concerns about the existing dwelling on site being demolished, visual impact, impact on nearby listed buildings, the potential for more houses to be built than what is shown on the Concept Plan and that the Transport Assessment provided is out of date. Objectors also sited ‘limited details provided on the future residential development’, that there is no current application is with the council for housing on the site; an increase in traffic and access to protected route, inadequate water, road and sewage infrastructure, lack of information on the proposal and road safety concerns.

There were also issues with a lack of neighbour notification; strain on public services; health and safety concerns; environmental concerns and impact on the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order; land ownership queries; that no Environmental Impact Assessment has been published; that the application is premature; that Boulderstone House was demolished without any notification or review, impact on protected species, concerns over bin collection; and discrepancies between plans.

Three objectors spoke at the Planning Committee meeting on Monday night.

One man noted that a lot of residents were ‘very elderly’ and that the former Boulderstone House had always been accessed from Antrim Road, ‘including the artics, HGVs and Caterpillars used to demolish Boulderstone House and take it away’, adding: “There is no evidence that access was ever sought via Antrim Road.”

He said that he had submitted a Freedom of Information request on the matter and asked for an adjournment until the reply had been received, asking for the committee members to make a site visit and that the Antrim Road entrance be used.

Another local man said he had lived at Broadacres for 50 years and had been ‘taken aback’ by the report advising that there would be no adverse impact on residents.

“There has been no consultation with planning, with DFI, even here tonight you are being asked to back something and we know very little about it.” he said, adding that the entrance to Broadacres also took in the adjoining Castleton, the health centre and shopping centre, leading out onto the main road to the International Airport and docks.

“They are putting all the traffic onto that road, there is no line of sight, it is a right angled junction, this is a short-sighted application and we need to adjourn it, there has been no consultation, we have had no political representatives speaking to us.”

A third local resident said she was ‘very concerned’ about the proposal and asked why council and the developer had not had consultation with residents.

“We are left facing possible huge disruption, with heavy vehicles bringing whatever is needed to open this up. There is an ageing population in this development, but also their grandchildren, with heavy vehicles going past, it is not going to be a safe place for them, I am worried about the traffic that will come through, can we be assured that the Boulderstone House entrance is from Antrim Road and not through Broadacres?”

DUP Councillor Sam Flanagan asked if the resident’s primary concern was the opening of the access or the future development, to which she replied: “Both, access will lead onto the second concern, what is going to happen in the future?”

Agent for the developer, Gemma Jobling said that the wider lands comprised 2.5 hectares and in line with council’s own strategy, new access could not be opened onto a protected route, such as the Antrim Road, where safer access exists.

She said that an indicative housing layout and tree and ecology surveys had been carried out.

“We acknowledge objectors concerns, but this is pre-emptive and only for the access and only establishing the suitability of proposed access. “

Ulster Unionist Councillor Robert Foster said that DFI Roads had not looked at the submitted traffic assessment and asked if it would have been better to submit a whole planning application for the development. Ms Jobling said that the developer was bringing forward the application rather than the landowner and that the traffic assessment had not been disregarded due to lack of detail.

“If they are saying we can't access via the protected route, that is what we are trying to achieve here, the developer has the option to buy the lands.” she said.

Councillor Foster said that many applications came to the committee with access not agreed, adding ‘who knows how long a planning application can take?’ although Ms Jobling said that she had provided up to 20 similar examples.

The UUP man asked how the committee could consider the application without the traffic assessment having been reviewed, adding that with access to a field, ‘traffic is negligible’.

“What the developer has done is to de-risk his option to buy the wider land, the traffic assessment is based on 170 vehicle trips per day, based on 35 dwellings, DFI roads is saying, that if you want 35 dwellings, make an application for 35 dwellings.”

He also asked if permission was needed for access to a field for agricultural or construction vehicles.

Barry Diamond, Deputy Director of Planning and Building Control said: “In the main, planning permission not required for agricultural-only accesses.”

DUP Alderman Matthew Magill said that while he appreciated that access to field was minimal, he asked if the committee was ‘tying their hands’ by agreeing an access arrangement ‘without any sight or knowledge of how the future site would look’.

Mr Diamond said: “Yes, if this was access road layout it would be piecemeal development, but this is just for an access into a field. However the development has not been behind the door, he has said, if we are successful here, we are coming forward with a housing application. The report has assessed 170 vehicle trips per day, DFI has resisted that, they say, if you want a housing development assessed, apply for a housing development. An application will have to come forward, I would caution against...fear of what might come forward in future, this is just an access at the minute, that has minimal traffic impact.”

He said that other access points were available, but there were not before the committee.

Alliance Councillor Tom Campbell asked if the suggestion of ‘his learned friend’ Alderman Magill that the committee was tying their hands was ‘a bit of a red herring’ and if it would be ‘improper for us to have regard of fear of development’.

Answering a question about tree protection orders, Mr Diamond said that two trees were shown to be in poor health and they would be allowed to be removed effectively rather than falling down.

Mr Diamond said that he could not identify demonstrable harm, other than fear of future development.

“In fairness to the developer, he is saying, this is what I am hoping to achieve in future, but it is not before us right now.”

Sinn Fein Councillor Rosie Kinnear proposed the recommendation to approve, seconded by Councillor Campbell. The committee voted nine for the recommendation, and three against.