Planning Appeals Commission Report by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council

Independent Examination Report of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council’s Local Development Plan 2030: Draft Plan Strategy

Report by Commissioner C McDonagh Commissioner R Daly

Reference:

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Hearing session dates:

5th-15th June and 2nd-12th August 2022

Date of report:

28th February 2023

Main abbreviations used in the report ACMD

Areas of Constraint on Mineral Development

ACHS

Area of Constraint on High Structures

APR

Areas of Parking Restraint

AMR

Annual Monitoring Report

AMS

Annual Mineral Statement

AONB

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

ASAI

Area of Significant Archaeological Interest

ASSI

Area of Special Scientific Interest

ATC

Area of Townscape Character

BAP

Ballymena Area Plan 1986-2001

Conservation Area

CAP

Carrickfergus Area Plan 2001

COMAH

Control of Major Accident Hazards

dBMAP

Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015

DAERA

Department of Agriculture Environment and Rural Affairs

DfC

Department for Communities

DfI

Department for Infrastructure

DPD

Development Plan Document

DPPN

Development Plan Practice Note

dPS

Draft Plan Strategy

EqIA

Equality Impact Assessment

GVA

Gross Value Added

HEF

Housing Evaluation Framework

HGI

Housing Growth Indicator

HRA

Habitats Regulation Assessment

Independent Examination

J&A

Justification & Amplification

KSR

Key Site Requirements

LAP

Larne Area Plan 2010

Listed Building

LDP

Local Development Plan

LPP

Local Policies Plan

Monitoring Indicator

MPS

UK Marine Policy Statement

LDP2021/MEA/PS

MEA

Mid and East Antrim area

MEABC

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council

MRA

Mineral Reserve Areas

Northern Ireland

NIEA

Northern Ireland Environment Agency

NILCA

Norther Ireland Landscape Character Assessment

NISRA

Northern Ireland Statistic and Research Agency

PAC

Planning Appeals Commission

Proposed Modification

POP

Preferred Options Paper

PPS

Planning Policy Statement

Plan Strategy

PSRNI

Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland

Recommended Amendment

RDS

Regional Development Strategy 2013: “Building a Better Future”.

RNIA

Rural Needs Impact Assessment

Sustainability Appraisal

SAC

Special Area of Conservation

SCI

Statement of Community Involvement

SEA

Strategic Environmental Assessment

SES

Shared Environmental Services

SLNCI

Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance

SPA

Special Protection Area

SPG

Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPPS

Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development

TPMU

Department for Infrastructures Transport Modelling & Planning Unit

Technical Supplement

UCS

Urban Capacity Study

WWTW

Wastewater Treatment Works

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Contents

Page No.

1.0

Overview & Legal and Procedural ............................................................................................... 1

2.0

Plan Introduction, Setting the Context, District Profile, Vision, and Strategic Objectives ....... 15

3.0

Spatial Growth Strategy ............................................................................................................ 20

4.0

Economic Development Strategy.............................................................................................. 32

5.0

Retail Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 37

6.0

Tourism Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 41

7.0

Transport Strategy .................................................................................................................... 43

9.0

Countryside Strategy................................................................................................................. 48

10.0

The General Policy for all Development ................................................................................... 67

11.0

Sustainable Economic Growth .................................................................................................. 70

12.0

Building Sustainable Communities ........................................................................................... 88

13.0

Transportation, Infrastructure and Connectivity .................................................................... 103

14.0 Stewardship of Our Built Environment and Creating Places .................................................... 121 15.0

Safeguarding our Natural Environment .................................................................................. 131

16.0

Other issues ............................................................................................................................ 134

17.0 Overall Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 137

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Appendices 1

Tests for soundness as set out in Development Plan Practice Note 6 Soundness

Mid & East Antrim Local Development Plan Draft Plan Strategy Document Library dated June 2021 (DPS-100A). All documents available to view on Council’s website.

Schedule of “MEA Matters Arising” from public hearing sessions of Independent Examination

Draft Plan Strategy Schedule of Proposed Modifications, January 2021 (DPS-143)

Draft Plan Strategy Schedule of Proposed Corrections, June 2021 (DPS-144) and Council’s Proposed Schedule of Typographical Corrections MEAM31 (August 2022)

Schedule of Recommended Amendments

LDP2021/MEA/PS

1.0

Overview & Legal and Procedural

1.1

Under the terms of Section 10 (6) of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 as amended (the Act), the purpose of the independent examination (IE) of a Local Development Plan (LDP) is to determine: (a) whether it satisfies the requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act and of Regulations under Section 22; and (b) whether it is sound. The tests of soundness are set out in Development Plan Practice Note 6 Soundness (DPPN 6). (Appendix 1)

1.2

Section 6 (2) of the Act states that the development plan documents are: (a) the plan strategy; and (b) the local policies plan. Accordingly, the LDP for Mid & East Antrim Borough Council (MEABC) will comprise two individual documents namely the Plan Strategy (PS) and the Local Policies Plan (LPP). The first stage of the two stage LDP process is the PS. It provides the strategic policy framework for the plan area across a range of topics. As the Act clearly defines the process, we have no jurisdiction to consider or comment on the merits or failings of the two-stage process.

1.3

This report considers: if the draft Plan Strategy (dPS) satisfies the legal requirements of Section 7 and 8 of the Act and any regulations as specified under Section 22 of the Act thereof relating to the preparation of development plan document (DPD); and whether the plan is sound. Having assessed those matters, we make recommendations and give reasons for them in accordance with Section 10 (8) of the Act.

1.4

The starting point for the IE is the assumption that the local planning authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The plan was submitted to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) for IE on 29 March 2021. On 30 June 2021, DfI appointed the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) to cause an IE. The document that was submitted is the same as that published for consultation during September 2019. Where documents forming part of the Council’s evidence base are referred to throughout this report, the cited reference numbers are those on its submission ‘Documents Library June 2021’ (DPS-100A) (Appendix 2) published on MEABC’s website under the heading “Local Development Plan Draft Plan Strategy Documents”.

1.5

In discharging our role as defined at Section 10 (6) (b) of the Act, we are entitled to raise matters at IE that might determine whether the plan is sound even if they were not the subject of representation. During the public hearing sessions, several submissions relating to the clarification of the dPS text, the evidence base and the schedule of proposed amendments were provided by the Council at our invitation. The schedule of “Matters Arising” were regularly updated on the Examination Library of the Commission’s website. (Appendix 3)

1.6

The evidence base comprises all the written submissions and documentation received throughout the entire IE process and is not solely confined to the issues considered in the oral presentation of evidence during public hearing sessions. All duly made representations and matters raised at the public hearing sessions have been considered.

1.7

The focus of the IE and this report is on the soundness of the plan and not on individual representations or site-specific matters. Furthermore, it is not the purpose of the IE to make the plan better or more sound. Changes to the plan sought by representations are the subject

of recommended amendments only where we have found, based on the evidence, that these are necessary for soundness. 1.8

Section 4 of the Development Plan Practice Note 10: “Submitting Development Plan Documents for Independent Examination” (DPPN 10), January 2020 makes provision for changes to the dPS following receipt of representations. Following the Council’s consideration of representations received during the public consultation on the dPS, the Council made several Proposed Modifications (PMs).

1.9

The PMs are set out in the document titled ‘Schedule of Proposed Modifications, dated January 2021 (DPS-143). (Appendix 4) The Council state that in preparing this report, they have taken account of the DPPN 10. The Proposed Modifications were subject to an 8-week consultation period from Friday 8th January to Friday 5 March 2021. We note that the PMs have also been subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA); Rural Needs Assessment (RNIA) and Equality (Section75) Screening Report. It is for us to consider whether the PMs are needed to make the dPS sound. As appropriate to specific issues, the PMs were raised at the public hearing sessions of the IE.

1.10

The Council also provided a Schedule of Proposed Corrections (PCs) (PC001-PC004) (DPS-144) and a further list of twenty-two typographical corrections submitted during the hearing sessions of the IE (MEAM31). (Appendix 5). The submitted corrections generally relate to drafting errors within the dPS and were identified after the Schedule of PMs was issued. Taking account of DPPN10 the Council have identified these to be minor changes. As these changes are generally so minor these PCs are taken as read as we accept are unlikely to cause any prejudice to any interested party.

1.11

The statutory purpose of the IE has been set out at paragraph 1.1 above. In carrying out the duty imposed by Section 10 (6) thereof, we are required to make recommendations and give reasons for them in accordance with Section 10 (8). To that end, where reference is made in the text of this report to Recommended Amendment (RA), we are carrying out that statutory duty. Where we consider a PM is needed to make the dPS sound, we will set out the reasons why and we shall include them within the list of RAs. Additionally, if we considered any of the corrections are necessary to satisfy soundness, we shall explain why, and a RA will be made. In respect of the PCs that do not relate to issues of soundness it is a matter for the DfI to direct the Council on how these PCs should be incorporated into the development plan document (DPD). The full details of those RAs that we consider to be necessary to make the dPS sound are set out in Appendix 6 which should be read alongside this report. Assessment of Legal and Procedural Compliance and other issues

1.12

The Council provided a “Self - Assessment of Soundness” (DPS-401) dated March 2021. This document included an assessment of compliance with the requirements of the Act and The Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 as amended [the Regulations]. An “Addendum to Self-Assessment of Soundness”, June 2021 (DPS-401A) was also provided.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

1.13

The submitted dPS sets out the Council’s objectives in relation to the development and use of land in the district; its strategic policies for the implementation of those objectives and such other matters as may be prescribed. Accordingly, it complies with Section 8 of the Act.

1.14

Section 8 (4) of the Act states the PS must be prepared in accordance with: (a) the timetable set out in section 7(1); and (b) the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Timetable

1.15

The timetable was published in August 2016. The content of the timetable includes the indicative dates for: (a) each stage of the preparation of the LDP including the Preferred Options Paper (POP); publication of the PS and LPP; and adoption of the PS and LPP. The requirements of Regulation 6 (2) (a) have been complied with.

1.16

The agreement of the timetable was initially approved by resolution of the Council on 3 May 2016. It was submitted to the DfI on 4 May 2016 for their agreement. The Department approved the initial timetable on the 26 May 2016. The agreement of the timetable accords with Regulation 7 of the Regulations. The timetable was made available by the Council for inspection. It gave notice of this by local advertisement on 8 August 2016 and published the timetable on the Council’s web site.

1.17

A revised timetable was published in 2017, a second revision in 2019. The same measures as set out above were undertaken in respect of the subsequent adjustments to the timetable. The Council consulted the Commission and DfI on each occasion when adjustments were made to the timetable. Representations were made in respect of the second timetable revision. Representors made the point that the consultation period (and that for subsequent counter objection) fell outside of the third quarter specified for publication in the timetable as it did not commence until 16th October 2019. The timetable referred to two elements: the publication of the dPS in the third quarter of 2019 (with the document published on 17th September 2019); and the statutory public consultation. The second element is reliant on the first. We are satisfied that the reference to the eight week period for representations combined with the eight week period for counter representations makes clear that all elements in the process cannot be achieved within a single quarter. The third quarter 2019 timeframe refers to the starting point and the commitment within the timetable relevant at that time was achieved. The availability of the timetable complies with Regulation 8 of the Regulations.

1.18

The Commission were notified in February 2022 that the Council were revising their LDP timetable. This timetable reflects the timing of the IE and provides the most up to date estimate on indicative timescales for the formulation of the LDP. At the hearing session of the IE the Council clarified that the latest revision of the timetable had been published on 10th March 2022. A copy of the timetable was provided as a matter arising (MEAM02). We are

satisfied that the timetable has been prepared within the legislative context of Section 7 of the Act and Regulation 5 the Regulations. 1.19

The Council has prepared and kept its timetable under review. Legislation provides for amended timetables to be submitted and must attempt to agree the terms of the timetable with the DfI. This is a continuous process that extends beyond the first stage of the LDP. The

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Council has met the legal requirements prescribed by Section 7 of the Act and associated Regulations in the preparation of the timetable. The requirements of Section 8 (4)(a) have also been met. Statement of Community Involvement 1.20

The Council published its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in August 2016. The SCI has been prepared as required by Section 4 of the Act and followed the process as set out by The Planning (Statement of Community Involvement) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. Two subsequent revisions have been published in November 2019 and December 2020. Detail in respect of their submission to the DfI is set out within the SCI Compliance Report (DPS-405). The document supports and supplements the Council’s responsibility to consult under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The dPS has been prepared in accordance with the Council’s SCI. The requirement of Section 8 (4) (b) of the Act has been met. Preferred Options Paper (POP)

1.21

The Council’s POP extended to 29 documents. (Appendix 2) Soundness test P2 requires that the Council prepares a POP and takes into account representations made. A 12-week period for public consultation was afforded (from 14 June 2017 until 6 September 2017). Many representors indicated that they consider the dPS to fail test P2 as associated policies run counter to their POP representation. However, the test requires that the Council prepare a POP and take into account any representations made. It does not require that the dPS must fully incorporate the POP.

1.22

The POP Public Consultation Report dated November 2017 (DPS-506) comprehensively considered all representations made on the POP in accordance with Regulation 11 (2) of the LDP Regulations. The suite of technical supplements shows the evolution from the key issues raised at POP stage to the dPS with in the sections titled ‘Preferred Options Paper’. The Council also provide a “Report on how POP representations were taken into account in the preparation of the draft Plan Strategy”, March 2021 (DPS-507). This document supplements the information in tabular form to show the issues raised during the POP stage and the Council’s consideration of them. Accordingly, the dPS evidence base demonstrates that the Council has prepared its POP and taken into account any representations made.

1.23

Part 3 – Preferred Options Paper “Self-Assessment of Soundness” (DPS-401) details a comprehensive list of engagement with consultation bodies before publishing the POP. In this process the Council has taken account of the representations received from the consultation bodies arising from the Pre-POP engagement. Regulation 9 of the Regulations has therefore been satisfied.

1.24

Prior to preparation of the dPS, the documents specified by Regulation 10 (a) were made available for inspection. In addition to the offices of MEABC’s Planning Department, they were made available at three other Council offices in Ballymena, Larne, and Carrickfergus during normal office hours. In accordance with Regulation 10 (c) the consultation bodes were duly notified about the POP on 14th June 2017. Notice of it was given by local advertisement week commencing 5th June 2017 as required by Regulation 10 (d) and it was published on MEABC’s web site. Regulation 10 of the Regulations is satisfied.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

1.25

The Preferred Options Paper Public Consultation Report (DPS-506) provides a summary of the representations received to the POP and the Councils initial consideration of these. The requirements of Regulation 11(3) & (4) of the Regulations have been met. Form and Content of a development plan document

1.26

The dPS accords with the stipulated form and content for a DPD. Accordingly, Regulation 12 of the Regulations is satisfied. Proposals Map

1.27

Regulation 13 (1) of the Regulations states that a DPD must contain a map or maps (known as “the proposals map”), describing the policies and proposals set out in the DPD so far as practicable to illustrate such policies or proposals spatially.

1.28

Regulation 13 (2) of the Regulations requires the proposals map to be sufficiently detailed so as to enable the location of proposals for the development and use of land to be identified. Section 23.0 of Development Plan Practice Note 7: “Plan Strategy” (DPPN7) says that the PS should contain maps which provide clarity on the council’s strategic policies and proposals where the proposals for development of land can be expressed spatially. It is recommended that the PS should contain an ‘Overview Map’ to show the plan area boundary and strategic proposals as well as any environmental designations to show specific areas of environmental protection which have been designated. The PS may also contain other maps, diagrams, illustrations, or other descriptive matter that the council thinks appropriate.

1.29

The dPS contains three district proposals maps. (DPS-102, DPS-103 and DPS-104). “Draft Plan Strategy District Proposals Map 1” shows the western section of the plan area. “Draft Plan Strategy District Proposals Map 2”, shows the eastern section of the plan area including its coastline and “Draft Plan Strategy District Proposals Map 3” shows the southern section of plan area including the section which runs alongside Belfast Lough. The proposals maps show the strategic spatial proposals for the Countryside, the existing and proposed new settlements and designations associated with Archaeology, Minerals and Tourism. Transport routes and Environmental designations are also shown for information. We are satisfied that the proposal maps included in the dPS are in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Regulations. Extant Plans for the Plan Area

1.30

The Insofar as it relates to the plan area, there are three statutory development plans. The Ballymena Area Plan (BAP) 1986-2001, adopted in 1989 (and alterations); The Larne Area Plan (LAP) 2010, adopted in 1998 and the Carrickfergus Area Plan (CAP) 2001, adopted in 2000. Although all have passed their stated end dates, they remain the DPD’s as defined in the Schedule to the Regulations. Some of the designations shown on the proposal maps have been carried through from previous plans. Cross reference is made within the dPS to government web sites containing the respective environmental designations to enable electronic review at a larger scale.

1.31

The strategic policies as set out in the dPS relating to these designations are considered later in this report. In the two stage plan process, spatial definition of settlement development

LDP2021/MEA/PS

limits, zonings and other designations or proposals is a matter for the LPP. At this stage of the plan process and considered in their totality, the plans within the dPS fulfil the statutory requirements of Regulation. 1.32

The CAP 2001 was formally superseded by the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015, in September 2014. However, on 18 May 2017 a judgement in the Court of Appeal ruled the final adoption of BMAP to be unlawful. This means the CAP 2001 remains the statutory development plan for the Carrickfergus area. The CAP 2001 was published prior to the RDS and is also long past its notional end date. According to the Chief Planner’s Update 4 dated 25 November 2019 (MEAM04) states the dBMAP remains as an emerging plan and, as such, remain as material considerations to be weighed by the decision maker. It will be for the Council to consider what weight should be given to the dBMAP designations in implementing the plan strategy policies applicable to this part of the plan area. The dBMAP designations applicable to the plan area are not part of this process and cannot be adopted as part of it. This is not helpful in a plan led process, nonetheless, with the two-stage plan process all of the outdated plans and the dBMAP proposals can be further considered and reviewed at the LPP stage of the process. Additional Matters to be taken into account

1.33

Regulation 14 of the Regulations requires that other specified matters are taken into account. The Council provided a copy of an update (MEAM01) to Regulation 14 of the Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. 14(a), states that the plan is required to take into account objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents for human health and the environment. 14b (ii) requires the protection of areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest in the vicinity of establishments where appropriate through appropriate safety distances and other measures and 14b(iii) requires the taking of additional technical measures in accordance with the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH) so as not to increase the risks to human health and the environment.

1.34

Reference to the COMAH regulations have been made within the Council’s evidence base. Paper 8-Public Utilities (DSP-521) at paragraph 2.38 recognises the COMAH Directive (EU Directive 96/82/EC as it was at the time but subsequently updated as per MEAM01) requires development plans to ensure that appropriate distances are maintained between hazardous substances, residential areas, open space, and other areas of public use. Paper 3-Employment and Economic Development (DPS-514) at paragraph 2.15 also referred to requirements of the COMAH Directive. The Strategic Settlement Evaluation-Appendix A (DPS-525, page 6) as an example of when COMAH is considered as one of the environmental capacity tests for settlements noting Ballycarry is near to a gas pipeline. The Council also referred to COMAH is within relevant technical supplements including (Technical Supplement 3 Housing)(DPS-118) and COMAH sites identified in the plan area are also considered in the context of context of contamination and stability (Technical Supplement 3 Appendix 1 – Urban Capacity Study, Table 6.1) (DPS-119). The Council’s evidence base demonstrates that regard has been had to the COMAH regulations.

1.35

Policy GP1 The General Policy for All Development that all proposals will be assessed against the general policy criteria a) to e). Criterion d) provides for the consideration of safety and

LDP2021/MEA/PS

safeguarding Human Health/Wellbeing. Paragraph 6.1.10 of the justification and amplification of Policy GP1 also makes specific reference to the use of planning powers to ensure new development is not located in areas of risk such as flood plains, areas liable to land instability and subsidence, or in the vicinity of COMAH site in assessing applications for residential development. Within the Council’s document Assessment of Soundness (DPS-401, page 10) the Council state that “maintaining appropriate distances” as covered by the Directive will also be an important consideration at LPP stage when zoning land for particular uses. This will involve consultation with the necessary statutory consultees in respect of safety. We are satisfied that the dPS meets the requirements of Regulation 14 of the Regulations. 1.36

Regulation 15 makes provisions for the availability of a DPD. A copy of the dPS; a copy of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA); and relevant supporting information including the draft Habitats Assessment Report (HRA) and Rural Needs Impact Assessment (RNIA) were provided at the planning office for MEABC (at County Hall, Ballymena at that time) and MEABC Council Offices in Ballymena, Larne, and Carrickfergus. Inspection during normal office hours was facilitated. The “Have Your Say” at the opening section of the dPS and accompanying leaflet (DPS-105) clearly specified the dates during which representations should be made and the address to which they should be sent. Consultation bodies were sent a copy of the documents on 3 October 2019. The Council published notices of the availability of the documentation four weeks prior to the formal consultation period. This was published in the Belfast Gazette and local papers from 9 September 2019 and again from week commencing 7 October 2019 to coincide with the commencement of the formal consultation period. The documents were also published on MEABC’s website in accordance with Regulation 15 (e). The public notices advised where the documents could be inspected; the period within which representations on the development plan could be made; and the address where such representations should be sent. The requirements of Regulation 15 of the Regulations are satisfied.

1.37

The statutory 8 week period for public consultation on the dPS commenced on 16th October 2019 and ended on 11 December 2019. Notice was given of the address to which representations could be sent in the advertisement. Regulation 16 (1) is satisfied.

1.38

A copy of the representations made in respect of the dPS were made available for inspection at the Council’s planning service office, and at the Council offices in Ballymena, Larne, and Carrickfergus. A copy of this was also place on the Council’s website from 31 January 2020 in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 17. The submission of counter representations to the specified address was invited during the statutory 8 week period until 27 March 2020. All those who made a representation to the dPS were contacted on 30 January 2020 to advise that representations to the dPS were available for inspection. Copies of all counter objections received were made available for inspection at the Council’s Offices – Planning Sections and were also on the Council’s website from 10th December 2020. The requirements of Regulations 18 and 19 of the Regulations are met.

1.39

Following consideration of the representations, the Council also prepared a Schedule of Proposed Modifications (PMs)(DPS-143). The PMs were the subject of a further 8-week consultation period.

1.40

Regulation 20 and 21 of the Regulations are concerned with the submission of documents for IE and their availability of inspection. The Council submitted the dPS and the specified

LDP2021/MEA/PS

documents (Document Library DPS-100A) to the DfI in March 2021 for the Independent Examination and made them available. Regulations 20 and 21 of the Regulations were satisfied. 1.41

Taking account of: commitments set out in the SCI and revisions (DPS-402 – DPS-405), we are satisfied the Council has facilitated public consultation in the preparation of the dPS as statutorily required. Sustainability Appraisal(SA)/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

1.42

Section 8 (6) of the Act requires that the Council must: (a) carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the plan strategy; and (b) prepare the report of the findings of the appraisal.

1.43

The role of the SA is succinctly set out at Sections 1.10-1.12, Page 2 of the Council’s Public Consultation Report (DPS-142). The dPS has been subject to SA including SEA. Schedule 2 of The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004, as amended, details information required for Environmental Reports as required by Regulation 11 (3), (4) therein. Appendix 1 of (SPS-106) provide a copy of the Council’s Compliance checklist for Strategic Environmental Assessment’ of the SA report (DPS-106). This checklist identifies the location of these requirements in SA report or the accompanying SA scoping report.

1.44

The Council carried out a SA of the POP (DPS-503 and DPS-504) and of the dPS (DPS-106, DPS107, DPS-108 and DPS-109). The SA is an iterative process that runs in parallel with the preparation of the LDP, including the dPS. The SA report (DPS-106) documents the Council’s appraisal of options and alternatives against a sustainability framework consisting of fourteen objectives. These objectives relate to social, economic, and environmental themes. They have helped the Council identify their preferred option. The process also identifies where the preferred option may have a significant effect, where these are negative effects and identifies how they may be mitigated. Addendum Report 1 to the SA (DPS-109) was published in January 2021 to take account and reflect the PMs to the draft policy wording and minor revisions to address editing issues, factual corrections, and typographical errors. The screening of the PMs was found to result in a generally beneficial effect that would result in a minor improvement in the sustainability of the dPS.

1.45

Many representors raised question regarding the scoring matrix for various proposals and policies in the dPS. Paragraph 2.4.3 of the SA (DPS-106) sets out the details of the assessment method which were used in the appraisal matrix. The matrix for each strategic objective and each policy is provided in Appendix 4 of the SA Report (DPS-106). As discussed, at the IE hearing sessions the scoring undertaken by council is a matter of judgment and the Council have latitude in how they consider the scoring. The representors difference in opinion relating to the scoring matrices in Appendix 4(DPS-106) does not result in the SA being inadequate, or procedurally lacking in this process. We note the Council’s comments made in Chapter 6, pages 250 -265 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) where they have provided sufficient detail to justify the scoring arrived at in the SA. For this reason, we do not intend to go into every representation that raises a difference of opinion to the Council’s scoring. We will only consider the aspects of these representations which raise matters of soundness. These are dealt with in the respective sections of this report. As required by Section 9 (7) of the Act the

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Council must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the LPP. This process with therefore continue throughout the formulation of the LDP. The requirements of Section 8(6) of the Act and Regulation 15 (a) (ii) of the Regulations have been satisfied. Furthermore, the Council has undertook an SA and prepared a report on its findings. The requirements of Regulation 6(2)(b) of the Regulations have been met. Habitats Regulation Assessment 1.46

The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 as amended. The draft HRA Report, published in September 2019 (DPS-110), provided an Appropriate Assessment of dPS policies on environmentally sensitive sites within and connected to the plan area, either alone or in combination with, other plans and projects.

1.47

Following the initial screening exercise, 14 policies were identified as having a likely significant effect and were subject to further assessment. Mitigations measures, in the form of suggested case specific policy restrictions or caveats, were identified in respect of all these policies as part of an Appropriate Assessment. The rationale is set out within Section 5 and summarised at Table 4 of the draft HRA Report (DPS-110).

1.48

Page 249 of the Council’s Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) provides consideration of the main issues raised in respect of the dHRA by the statutory consultees. As a result of the appropriate assessment process the Council accept that several changes to the wording of policies in the dPS must be accepted, in full, to achieve conformity and meet the legal requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations (NI) 1995 (as amended).

1.49

The recommended mitigation from the HRA Report (DPS-110) identified 15 modifications. Only 14 out of the 15 modifications were carried through to the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) of the dPS. The remaining mitigation not carried through related to a recommendation to include the East Coast (Northern Ireland) Marine SPA (proposed) on the district proposals map (page 17 of the draft HRA). (DPS-110) As its status is a proposed SPA, its status remains under review hence it was omitted at this stage and can be made in any update to the draft HRA as the LDP process. We consider this is a reasonable approach. The HRA concludes that “Assuming the recommended mitigation measures are all accepted, and the plan amended accordingly, it is possible to ascertain that the dPS, as written, will have no adverse effect on the integrity of an international sites”.

1.50

An Addendum to the HRA titled “Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Draft Plan Strategy - Addendum Report 1”, January 2021 (DPS-111). The addendum reports on the assessment of the effects of the PMs in relation to the draft HRA of the dPS. The PMs that are relevant to the HRA were screened to identify whether they would have a likely significant effect on any international designated sites. They report concludes that the PMs will have no likely significant effect on any international sites. All were screened out of a need for an Appropriate Assessment. Assuming that those modifications are all accepted, and the plan amended accordingly, it is possible to ascertain that the dPS will have no adverse effect on the integrity of any international sites. Each of the PMs will be considered against the tests of soundness in the relevant sections of this report and where they meet those tests will be set out as recommended amendments with Appendix 6 of this report.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

1.51

The HRA is an iterative process that runs in parallel with the preparation of the LDP. The HRA for the PS will be finalised following this IE. As part of this next step: in-combination and cumulative effects from other plans and projects it will be further considered; and mitigation measures will be reviewed and, if necessary, clarified when the HRA is finalised prior to adoption of the PS. If future site-specific evidence and management plans identify climate change adaptation measures, these can be taken into account at LPP stage. For now we are satisfied that the relevant legal requirements have been observed to date. Interim Conclusion on Legal and Procedural Compliance

1.52

We are satisfied that the: ▪ dPS document has been prepared in accordance with the Council’s timetable and SCI. Therefore, Section 7 of the Act has been complied with and procedural soundness test P1 has been met; ▪ Council has prepared its POP and taken into account any representations thereby procedural soundness test P2 has been satisfied; ▪ dPS document has been subject to a SA and SEA in accordance with Section 8 (6) of the Act and procedural soundness test P3; and ▪ Council has complied with the Regulations on the form and content of the DPD and procedure for its preparation, thereby procedural soundness test P4 has been complied with. Equality Impact Assessment

1.53

The Council is required to ensure that its DPD is prepared in accordance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Consequently, the Council must undertake an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) to determine the potential impacts upon Section 75 groups because of the policies and proposals contained in the DPD.

1.54

The first phase EqIA was carried out alongside the POP (DPS-505) when overarching bodies for the nine identified section 75 groups. Over 100 groups were consulted. The draft EqIA Screening Report (DPS-112) was undertaken with the purpose to identify if any of the policies are likely to have an impact on equality of opportunity and to ensure that this is taken into account in the policy making process. It acknowledges there is the potential for ‘minor negative’ in the religious belief Section 75 category. This is linked to the Spatial Growth Strategy/Settlement hierarchy for the plan area. However, taking account of all the evidence no mitigation is considered necessary. This report found no significant adverse impacts on equality of opportunity on identified Section 75 groups.

1.55

Furthermore Part 4 of the draft EqIA, at page 32, sets out monitoring details stating that monitoring and review are an integral part of the plan making process. Technical Supplement 1-Monitoring and Review (DPS-116) highlights that a five year review of the LDP will be carried out subsequent to the adoption of the PS to ensure the policies and proposals are achieving their objectives. There will be further scope for any impacts on Section 75 groups to be considered through this review.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

1.56

An addendum to the draft EqIA screening report ((DPS-113) was published in January 2021 in response to the PMs. Part 2 of that report sets out that only the Open Space Strategy SGS9 and HOU16 in respect of affordable housing were viewed to widen the scope of the policy with potential for benefit to all Section 75 groups. The PMs do not change the aim/purpose of any of the proposed strategies or policies from that previously assessed. Therefore, the previously assessed proposed impact of policies on equality of opportunity for each Section 75 equality category remains unchanged from that indicated at pages 22-25 of the dEqIA (DPS-112). The Council had complied with its section 75 requirements. Rural Needs Impact Assessment

1.57

Section 1 (1) of the Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 requires that the Council must have due regard to rural needs when developing or implementing policies. Section 6 thereof defines “rural needs” as the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas. The Council have observed this statutory duty in its Rural Needs Impact Assessment (RNIA) (DPS-114). At Section 5 thereof the Council concluded that engagement with stakeholders and the evidence gathered in preparation of the dPS. The dPS process offers sufficient opportunities for residential development, sustainable economic development and provision of facilities and services to support the maintenance and growth of a vibrant rural community. Paragraph 1.5.8 and 1.5.9 of the dPS summarise its context.

1.58

An addendum to the RNIA (DPS-115) dated January 2021 was prepared alongside the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the dPS (DPS-143). In reassessing the outcomes of the original RNIA regarding the PMs, it considered the outcomes unchanged from the original assessment and do not alter how much regard the dPS has had to rural needs. Approach to consideration of soundness

1.59

Section 8 (5) of the Act sets out what a council must take account of in preparing its PS. These include: (a) the Regional Development Strategy (RDS); (aa) The Council’s current community plan (as required by Section 77 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, as amended); (b) any policy or advice contained in guidance issued by the Department; and (c) such other matters as the Department may prescribe or, in a particular case direct.

1.60

Section 8(5)(c) also states that the council may have regard to such other information and considerations as appear to the council to be relevant. The phrase “take account of” is not defined in in the Act’s Interpretation at Section 250 thereof. Consistency tests C1, C2 and C3 of DPPN 6 Soundness mirror these legal requirements. Again, the phrase is not defined.

1.61

Section 6 (4) of the Act directs that in making any determination under its provisions, regard is to be had to the LDP and that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This establishes the primacy of the LDP in the plan-led system as acknowledged by paragraph 5.11 of the SPPS. In accordance with Sections 6 (4) and 45 (1) of the Act, extant regional policy will remain a material consideration in decision-making. Therefore, if an LDP is silent on a particular issue but regional policy addresses it, then the latter will have to be considered by the decision-maker albeit that the LDP has primacy. The plan-led system does not mean that the provisions of the SPPS are no

LDP2021/MEA/PS

longer a material consideration in decision-making. The primacy that is legally accorded to the LDP means that where there is conflict between its provisions and that of regional policy, any determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.62

Many representations considered that elements of the dPS were unsound as they did not replicate provisions and the exact wording of policy and guidance issued by the Department. This was a recurrent theme in discussion and consideration of individual issues. Paragraph 5.23 of the SPPS says that the overarching purpose of the PS is to provide the strategic policy framework for the plan area and to bring forward a local growth strategy. In doing so, councils are required to “address the range of policy matters set out in the SPPS”; this is not a requirement to reproduce them in their entirety. Paragraph 6.3 of DPPN7 also affords councils discretion and flexibility in the LDP process. The final sentence thereof is particularly pertinent, and it reads: “Therefore, whilst a council must consider the following topic areas, it may only decide to include strategic policies and proposals to supplement (our emphasis) the requirements of the RDS and SPPS on those topic areas which it considers to be relevant and help achieve its objectives for the local area”. This notes that the dPS should align with the core principles and aims of regional policy but, in responding to circumstances in the plan area, not be rigidly constrained by it.

1.63

In the absence of a legal or other definition for “take account of” and persuasive evidence to the contrary, the requirement does not mean that every provision of regional planning policy must be included within the PS to comply with Sections 8 (5) (a) and (b) of the Planning Act.

1.64

There are two constituent parts to the Council’s dPS. When read together, they represent the strategic policy framework for the plan area across a range of topics. The dPS must be read holistically and the entirety of its provisions when considering whether development proposals are in accordance with it. Section 1.7 of the dPS refers to ‘Using the LDP Plan Strategy’. Furthermore, at paragraph 1.7.8 of dPS the Council refers to when assessing proposals, it will consider all relevant policies in the round. Policies are therefore not read in isolation as more than one policy could apply to a proposal. As the dPS is to be read in the round, there is no need to cross reference or replicate elements of policies relating to one topic in identifying those for another. Therefore, we have considered the plan “in the round” and this has guided our assessment of whether individual policies within the dPS meet the soundness tests.

1.65

Section 8 (5) (b) of the Act requires that in preparing the PS, account must be taken of any policy or advice contained within guidance issued by the Department. Paragraph 5.4.13 of DPPN 6 acknowledges that a DPD, or its constituent parts, may have implications beyond its area and requires that regard be had to relevant plans, policies, and strategies in adjoining areas. Therefore, soundness test C4 requires that the dPS has regard to other relevant plans, policies and strategies relating not only to the Mid and East Antrim plan area but also to any adjoining council’s district areas. That said, there is no statutory duty that requires cooperation between local planning authorities and other public bodies to maximise the effectiveness of policies for strategic matters in individual LDPs. The procedural tests do not require that Councils’ policies dovetail and align with one another and/or with strategies, policy or plans of government departments or infrastructure providers.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

1.66

At Chapter 2 (pages 5 to 10) of the Council’s Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) the Council have explained the engagement process undertaken. This includes details of the oversight groups involved with assisting with the formulation of policies in the dPS and the public consultation process. The Council were also represented by planning officers and elected members on the Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group (MASWG). This provided a forum for Belfast City Council and surrounding Councils within the wider Belfast metropolitan area to discuss cross-boundary issues alongside the development of the Council’s LDP.

1.67

The Council are involved in establishing the Lough Neagh Forum as a means of demonstrating a constructive and sound approach to policy formulation on cross boundary issues around Lough Neagh including environmental designations, minerals development, flooding and tourism and greenways.

1.68

The Council are represented on the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB Management Group which focuses on achieving synergy on the development of policies, practices, partnerships, and projects within and around the AONB that promote, protect, and enhance the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB status. Other cross boundary working include the Coastal Forum and the Minerals working Group which provide an appropriate forum for discussion of issues pertaining to relevant plans, policies, and strategies.

1.69

The Council have undertaken measures to ensure the dPS has had regard to other relevant plans, policies and strategies relating to any adjoining council’s district. At this stage no overarching issues are apparent regarding compliance with soundness test C4. However, this is an issue that will be considered in the context of the individual strategies and policies set out in the dPS. Covid 19 pandemic

1.70

A report on the COVID 19 Response, March 2021 (DPS-313) have been provided within the Council’s supporting. The report considers the ability of the dPS to address the immediate impacts arising from the COVID 19 pandemic, while acknowledging that further consideration will be given at LPP stage to the longer-term impacts as they become apparent. Taking account of impacts of the COVID pandemic that Council consider the dPS remains relevant and is sufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances and new challenges. While much of the evidence base pre-dates the covid pandemic, the changing trends when looking at the LDP period, are not expected to impact on their robustness. We accept there is sufficient mechanisms, within the two-stage plan process, to deal with any potential implications for the plan area in respect of the outworking’s from the impacts the Covid 19 Pandemic. This approach is realistic and appropriate in this context. The Plan Period

1.71

The Act does not set out a prescribed period that the plan should cover. The SPPS requires, at paragraph 5.7, that LDPs should set out a long-term spatial strategy. Amongst other things, paragraph 2.6 of Development Plan Practice Note 1: Introduction: Context for Local Development Plans (DPPN 1) states that the LDP should provide a 15-year plan framework to support the economic and social needs of a council’s district in line with regional strategies

LDP2021/MEA/PS

and policies, while providing for the delivery of sustainable development. There is no suggestion therein that the 15-year plan period commences upon adoption of the plan. Whilst we accept that with one qualification, paragraph 22 of the English National Policy Planning Framework says that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities. However, there is no such equivalent policy in this jurisdiction. 1.72

While representors consider the 15-year plan framework covers both the dPS and LPP and the slippage in the potential adoption date means the plan would have only a short shelf life. Nonetheless there is nothing in the legislation or guidance such as DPPN 6 to limit the plan to a set period. The LDP will not become obsolete after 2030 rather it will continue as the LDP after this date. The process of ongoing monitoring and review throughout the period of the plan will assist in keeping the plan up to date with current trends and needs of the citizens in the respective plan area. The dPS is consistent with policy and guidance relevant to the Northern Ireland context.

1.73

The evidence based used in the formulation and presentation of dPS covers up to the period 2030. The Council have interpreted the 15-year period as starting when work on the plan started in 2015. An extension to the plan period would be at variance with the publicly stated intention of the plan. Furthermore, had the Council attempted to extrapolate that evidence base post-publication to cover the extended period sought by representors, such action would have given rise to fundamental concerns about how compliance with soundness test CE2 could be achieved as its robustness would be called into question. In addition, there could be implications for the supporting documents, notably the SA/SEA and the SCI. There would also be ramifications for further public consultation. For all the above reasons, whilst the Council could have opted for a longer plan period as consideration of the extension of the plan period at this stage in the IE would give raise fundamental concerns with legislative compliance and soundness. We are satisfied that the plan period of 15 years as prescribed in the dPS is sound. Assessment of Soundness

1.74

This report deals with the main issues raised by the representors in respect of the tests of soundness. It also considers counter objections and any representations received to the PMs. The report does not respond to every point or issue raised; document the answers to every question raised with the parties at the public hearing sessions; or refer to every policy in the dPS, only those that representors have said are unsound. The report will generally reflect the layout of the dPS in the following way: • • • • •

Consideration of the strategic spatial proposals and associated polices linked to the LDP spatial growth strategy and countryside strategy (Part 1 of the dPS); Consideration of Policy GP1 which sets out the General Policy for all Development; Consideration of strategic subject policies (Part 2 of the dPS); Consideration of other matters including monitor and review of the dPS (Technical Supplement 1, DPS-116); and Appendix 6 is a schedule of RAs to the plan and should be read alongside this report. The RAs are numbered sequentially, reflecting, generally, the order in which they arise in this report.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

2.0

Plan Introduction, Setting the Context, District Profile, Vision, and Strategic Objectives Introduction

2.1

Paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS refers to how in assessing a proposal, the Council will consider all relevant policies in the round. PM-001 seeks to add text to this paragraph to refer to the recommended mitigation measures in the draft HRA and clarify that the specific referencing of Policy NAT1 European and Ramsar Sites – International does not elevate NAT1 above other policies. However, this is contradictory as paragraph 1.7.8 also states that applicants should not read policies in isolation, as more than one policy could apply to any proposal. Reference to NAT1 is not required to ensure avoidance of a likely significant effect on international sites; the provisions of Policy NAT1 will have to be complied with regardless. PM-001 is not necessary for soundness on this basis. Setting the Context – Other Strategies and Plans

2.2

The DfI representation states that ‘The Living with Water Programme’ (LWWP) has been established to progress the Strategic Infrastructure Plan to provide a holistic and integrated approach to drainage. PM-002 is an insertion of an additional paragraph after 2.1.11 of the dPS indicating the relevance of this programme to issues identified with the Carrickfergus sewerage network system and wastewater treatment works particularly regarding the Belfast Lough. LWWP is a strategy to support the Strategic Infrastructure Plan which has relevance to the plan area. RA001 is necessary to demonstrate that regard has been had to LWWP and the Strategic Infrastructure Plan and is therefore necessary to satisfy the test of soundness. We are satisfied this sufficient to address this issue and does require any further amendment.

2.3

The context of the UK Marine Policy Statement is detailed at paragraph 2.1.12 of the dPS and reference is made to the draft Marine Plan for NI at paragraph 2.1.13 of the dPS. Representors seek inclusion of reference to both documents at paragraph 1.7.1 of the dPS. The Marine Plan for Northern Ireland remains in draft form. Consultation for that document concluded in 2021 and it is still classified as emerging hence cannot be given the same status as an adopted plan. It is not necessary for the dPS to be sound to be ‘in accordance with’ a draft document. Nonetheless in our review of the dPS we are satisfied that consideration has been given both documents (UK Marine Policy Statement and The Draft Marine Plan for NI) for proposals within coastal Special Countryside Areas (SCAs) in line with CS2 Special Countryside Areas (Paragraph 5.9.13 of the dPS) and in respect of CS6 relating to the Developed Coast (Belfast Lough Shore) at paragraph 5.9.40 of the dPS. Paragraph 5.10.4 refers to CS9 and having regard to their provisions for proposals affected by land instability and coastal erosion. Representations sought additional references to the consideration of marine policy documents within specific policies. This is considered further within the appropriate sections of this report.

2.4

Representors consider the wording in the dPS should set out the legislative requirements of Section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and Section 8 of the Marine Act (NI) 2013 i.e. ‘in accordance with’. However, the C4 test of soundness is to has the plan had regard to other relevant plans. We are satisfied the Council has had regard to the Marine and Coastal Act 2009, and the framework within the UK Marine Policy Statement in the formulation of the

LDP2021/MEA/PS

dPS and how they will inform and guide the regulation management, use and protection of the marine area, both offshore and inshore regions, including all tidal rivers and sea loughs. The dPS has had regard to both documents and no issues arise in terms of soundness test C4. 2.5

The Council acknowledge that SA sustainability objectives do not specifically state Marine, Coastal and Transitional waters. Nonetheless the Council consider this relates more to the language used rather than an absence of consideration of how the spatial growth strategy may affect or impact these areas. We have considered the Council’s evidence. A sustainability objective 11 (DPS-106) is to protect, manage and use water resources sustainably which is followed through in the consideration of the PMs within the Addendum Report 1 (DPS-109). Chapter 5 of the SA Scoping Report (DPS-107) also notes that a wide range of marine and coastal aspects and their impact on the plan. We are satisfied the impacts of the policy have taken account of the marine, coastal and transition waters in the plan area. Furthermore, given the LDP is a two stage process the marine, coastal and transition waters in the plan area will also be considered further at the LPP stage.

2.6

Paragraph 2.1.17 of the dPS notes the range of supplementary plan guidance which supports regional policies contained in various PPSs and the SPPS. The dPS noted these are retained as material planning considerations. The Council have indicated that it is their intention to publish supplementary planning guidance in due course namely for developer contributors and potentially to promote new tree planting. SPG’s to support or clarify policy within the dPS is not inconsistent with the plan-led system.

2.7

Paragraph 2.1.18 of the dPS provides a wide-ranging list of documents which the Council have had regard to in preparing the plan document. PM-003 seeks to add a reference to the Northern Ireland Regional Character Assessment 2016 (NIRLCA) to this list. Whilst we note that the NIRLCA is referred to in other sections of the dPS. in the interests of being coherent and effective, and where policies logically flow it is necessary that this document is referenced as one of the bullet points at paragraph 2.1.18 of the dPS. At page 32 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142), the Council note that second Northern Ireland Climate Change Adaptation Programme 2019-2024 was not published until after the dPS went to print. The Council have stated that they will refer to it in the adopted plan. However, to demonstrate that regard has been given to this document an additional bullet point at paragraph 2.1.18 should be inserted and is required to satisfy soundness test C4. RA002 is therefore necessary. District Profile

2.8

Linkages between the marine area and the plan area is cross cutting throughout the policies in the plan. To meet the tests of soundness reference to the marine area need to be specifically referred to within the Section 3 District Profile for the plan to be sound.

2.9

In the context of the Council’s District Profile at paragraph 3.4.3, page 36 of the dPS Larne Port is identified under the heading of economy. The dPS notes ‘Larne is renowned as a premier port’. We consider this supports the provisions identified for Larne as specified in the RDS at paragraph 3.72 and has had regard to the SPPS at paragraphs 6.32 and 6.44. The identification of land for the Larne Port is a site-specific matter and is best placed in the consideration of LLP

LDP2021/MEA/PS

stage of this process. No amendment is necessary to the District Profile. The approach in respect of the status of Larne Port as set out by the dPS is sound. 2.10

2.11

Kilroot Power Station and Ballylumford Power Station are two power stations located in the plan area. Paragraph 3.6.4 of the dPS notes the contribution they make to the area providing significant employment opportunities and business rate contribution. This is recognised within the context of infrastructure in the District Profile. At paragraph 9.3.2, page 236 the dPS, the plan notes the area is a key strategic location in relation to Northern Ireland’s energy network. Paragraph 9.4.2, page 242, of the dPS also notes the importance of the power stations to the strategic location of the plan area. We are satisfied that the dPS makes numerous references to the importance of the role and contribution of these power stations for the plan area. Bespoke policies relating to ‘Strategic Energy Infrastructure and Development’ and ‘Gas Infrastructure’ were requested to enable continuity of supply during the transition to carbonfree energy generation. Further discussion on the policy framework to determine related development is set out at Section 13 of this report. Paragraph 3.6.6 of the dPS notes there are 53 Waste Water Treatment facilities (WWTW) in the plan area. The Council provided a copy of Mid and East Antrim Settlements Served by WWTW (dated March 2022) (MEAM05). In this update Note 9 refers to the planned upgrade, subject to funding, of the WWTWs for Carrickfergus, Greenisland, Grange and Larne. We were advised this relates this relates to March 2027 and coincides with the period of the plan, albeit, to the latter part of that period. RA003 is that paragraph 3.6.6 is updated to reflect the increase to four WWTW being programmed for upgrade. This amendment is required to ensure the evidence base is robust in accordance with soundness test CE2. Vision

2.12

Section 4.1 of the dPS sets out the vision which aligns the LDP to the Council’s Community Plan. The Vision for the LDP, paragraph 4.1.1, is that “Mid and East Antrim will be shaped by high quality, sustainable and connected places for people to live, work enjoy, invest and visit, so as to improve the quality of life for all”. In seeking to realise this vision paragraph 4.1.3, page 42, of the dPS states the LDP will strive to deliver sufficient housing that is of good quality, in locations convenient to jobs and services and that meets local requirements in regard to factors such as size, house type and affordability. The settlement hierarchy and housing provision for the plan area is considered in Sections 3 and 12 of this report. It is not necessary that the vision for the plan area is strengthened to read ‘the LDP will strive to deliver a generous provision of housing’ for the plan to be sound. Strategic Objectives

2.13

Section 8 of the Act states that a Council must set out its objectives in relation to the development and use of land in its district and its strategic policies for their implementation. The strategic objectives aim to assist in the delivery of the complementary visions of the Community Plan and the LDP. As noted at paragraph 4.2.1 of the dPS the strategic objectives encompass the three ‘pillars’ of sustainable development which embrace economic, social, and environmental priorities.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

2.14

Supporting sustainable economic growth is a core planning principle stated in the SPPS. Economic objectives are stated at page 44 and 45 of the dPS. Paragraph 6.92 of the SPPS states that a fundamental role for LDPs is to ensure that there is an ample supply of suitable land available to meet economic development needs in a plan area. PM-004 seeks to amend the word ‘sufficient’ to ‘generous’ at Economic Objective a) so the objectives are consistent with dPS Economic Strategy and its aims. To provide a coherent strategy from which policies and allocations flow the word ‘generous’ reflects more than sufficient and takes account of provisions of the SPPS which directs that ample supply of land should be available to meet the economic development needs for the plan area. RA004 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE1.

2.15

Social objectives are specified at page 45 of the DPS. Social objective a) seeks to support the role of main towns, villages, and small settlements in accordance with the LDP Spatial Growth Strategy and commensurate with their place in the settlement hierarchy. The Growth Strategy is considered at Section 3 of this report. The wording of objective a) seeks to sustain growth commensurate with their place in the hierarchy. It is not necessary for objective a) to specifically state the words ‘and grow’ to satisfy the tests of soundness.

2.16

Social objective c) is to provide a sufficient supply of land for new mixed tenure housing in convenient locations to meet the anticipated housing need of around 7, 500 dwellings for the period 2012 to 2030, including any identified special housing needs. To ensure the strategy, policies and allocations are appropriate and are coherent, in accordance with soundness tests CE1 and CE2, a footnote (PM-004) to clarify the variations between the time periods used indicated by social objective c) and that stated in SGS3 Strategic Allocation of Housing in Settlements is required. RA005 is necessary to satisfy the tests of soundness.

2.17

In respect of housing in settlements paragraph 6.136 of the SPPS states that the policy approach must be to facilitate adequate and available supply of quality housing to meet the needs of everyone; promote sustainable housing development within existing urban areas; and the provision of mixed housing development with homes in a range of sizes and tenures. Social objective c) uses the word ‘sufficient’. The regional policy context does not provide any requirement for an LDP to provide a ‘generous’ supply of land.

2.18

Furthermore, Social objective c) as worded would not prohibit the delivery of housing need in the plan area. That need will be delivered by various sites, including urban capacity sites, coming forward. The details of housing need and the specific location providing for that need will be considered and assessed as the LPP stage of the plan process and any further review of the plan documents. Social objective c) as worded is therefore sound.

2.19

The SPPS recognises that coastal areas need protected. Paragraph 3.13 of the SPPS states that the planning system should therefore help to mitigate and adapt to climate change and specifies several bullet points. Within the stated bullet points the SPPS refers to avoiding development in areas with increased vulnerability to the effects of climate change, particularly areas at significant risk from flooding, landslip and coastal erosion and height exposed sites at significant risk from impacts of storms. The SPPS at paragraph 6.42 states also that development will not be permitted in areas of the coast known to be at risk from flooding, coastal erosion, or land instability. This paragraph does not use the word ‘significant’. Nonetheless Environmental objective f) as worded refers to a ‘significant risk’ from flooding.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

As the words ‘significant risk’ are also referred to, such as at paragraph 3.12 of SPPS, no amendment is necessary to this objective to satisfy the tests of soundness. 2.20

At page 29 of the dPS the Council states in preparing the dPS regard has been had to both The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (May 2011) and The Biodiversity Strategy for Northern Ireland to 2020 (July 2015). We note that the matter of biodiversity is consistently referred to in many policies stated in the dPS. Environmental Objective a) embodies the requirement to enhance environmental quality, biodiversity, and the natural process underpinning the delivery of ecosystem services in plan area. We are satisfied that the dPS as drafted make provision for biodiversity opportunities for the plan area. Similarly, it is not necessary that the strategic objectives of the plan demonstrate links with marine policies. Paragraph 2.1.13 at page 28 of the dPS refers to the draft Marine Plan for Northern Ireland. These concerns do not of themselves give rise to issues of soundness.

2.21

Environmental objectives g) and h) refer to climate change and promote and facilitate the use of energy, water and drainage, and mineral resources in an efficient and sustainable manner. Whilst establishing targets to identify how the plan would encourage renewable energy development in the plan area would assist to monitor this aspect of the environmental objectives, such a monitor is not necessary for the dPS to be sound given there are many ways that this objective could met in the plan area.

2.22

The Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 28 to 39 addresses the representations in respect of soundness relating to the dPS Introduction, Setting the Context, District Profile, Vision, and Strategic Objectives. We have considered these representations and PM-001 to PM-004 within the schedule of proposed modifications (DPS-143) and representations received to them. We concur with the councils reasoning and conclusions. Subject to RA001, RA002, RA003, RA004 and RA005 these sections of the dPS are sound as written.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3.0

Spatial Growth Strategy

3.1

Part 5 of the dPS provides the spatial growth strategy which aims to provide strategic framework for realising the vision and objectives of the LDP. Table 5.1 of the dPS illustrates how the dPS takes account of RDS hierarchy of settlement and spatial framework guidance. SGS1 Spatial Growth Strategy identifies where growth should be directed, in terms of housing, employment and commercial development over the plan period. The Spatial Growth Strategic aims to also inform the operational strategic subject policies in Part 2 of the dPS which will ultimately influence the allocation of land for development in the LPP for the plan area.

3.2

The Spatial Growth Strategy SGS1 seeks to manage growth to secure sustainable patterns of development across the plan area. It recognises the role of the main towns; the appropriate growth for small towns; sustaining rural communities living in and around villages and small settlements; and the sustainable development in the open countryside. At page 43 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) the Council state that to sustain rural communities in line with the RDS it was considered reasonable to allocate 8.5% of housing to villages and 2.5 % of housing to small settlements and villages with the majority (62%) going to the three main towns (Ballymena, Carrickfergus, and Larne) and a 15% share to the small towns. Whilst some representators question the allocations in the dPS we have not been persuaded that such an allocation, of itself, would result in a disproportionate growth of the smaller settlements that would affect the role of the larger settlements.

3.3

As noted in Chapter 2, Setting the Context, paragraph 2.1.18 specifically refers to strategies and plans that the Council had regard to in the preparation of the dPS. It is not necessary that this list of documents is reiterated or referenced within the context of the SGS1 Spatial Growth Strategy. The plan is read in the round. Furthermore, it is not necessary that specific reference is made to conventional or renewable energy or to the climate change, biodiversity, or environment strategies to make SGS1 sound. Settlement Hierarchy

3.4

The dPS states the purpose of the Settlement Hierarchy is to provide the spatial framework for the delivery of the Spatial Growth Strategy SGS1. The proposed settlement hierarchy for the plan area was detailed in the POP and was primarily based on the evidence provided in: the RDS Hierarchy of Settlements and Spatial Framework; the detailed settlement evaluation (DPS-524) examined the hierarchy in the existing area plans; and assessed of each settlement below the top tier of the three main towns, to rank their sustainability; and an analysed the built up nodes in the countryside to identify potential new settlements that have a concentration of buildings displaying an obvious sense of cohesion and place offering one or more community facilities.

3.5

In considering the settlement hierarchy the Council explained that the first step in the methodology was that the dPS retains the three main towns of Ballymena, Carrickfergus, and Larne at the top of the hierarchy. Paragraph 3.3 of Technical Supplement 2:Settlement Hierarchy and Strategic Evaluation (DPS-117) notes all these centres have populations ranging from 18,705 to 29,467 and are well in excess of any of the small towns or villages. These settlements were also noted to provide the range of services; have transportation links within

LDP2021/MEA/PS

and beyond the plan area; and have strength in their economic base. The SGS2 Settlement Hierarchy as presented in the dPS proposes the designation of three main towns. 3.6

Furthermore, at page 46 of Public Consultation Report (DPS-142), the Council state that a Strategic Settlement Evaluation for the mains towns was not undertaken for the three main towns, as all had self-evidently substantially larger populations and range of services, amenities, and facilities. Nonetheless the Council note that these settlements have been analysed and considered during the housing allocation process where the Housing Evaluation Framework of the RDS has been applied to understand the differences between the three main settlements in respect of the housing allocations. This approach is realistic and appropriate and is founded on robust evidence base. It satisfies soundness test CE2.

3.7

The Council explain that the second step in the methodology was to focus on the lowest tier in the settlement hierarchy relating to the small settlements. The settlement evaluation (DPS524 & DPS-525) revealed that some of the already designated small settlements lacked any form of service provision and some displayed little form of physical cohesion or sense of place. Following the PAC tests as applied to dBMAP inquiry when applied to these settlements resulted in the rationale for de-designating twelve small settlements from the proposed hierarchy. SGS2 Settlement Hierarchy as presented in the dPS proposes the designation of 17 Small Settlements. On this basis the settlements of Knocknagulliagh and Feystown were dedesignated. Taking account of the evidence base the de-designation of these settlements is realistic and appropriate and is founded on a robust evidence base.

3.8

The third step in the methodology was to consider the status of the remaining 25 settlements below the main town tier. Paragraph 3.6 of Technical Supplement 2:Settlement Hierarchy and Strategic Settlement Evaluation (DPS-117) states that to determine which settlements should be classified as small towns, villages, and as small settlements a detailed Sustainability Assessment was carried out. The final step in the methodology was to take account of other relevant factors such a population size and economic development, to refine the overall assessments.

3.9

The approach taken in SGS2 to designate small towns bases on a plan area wide criterion is realistic and appropriate. Given that no villages in the former Larne Borough were close to meeting the criterion is not necessary for the plan to be sound to designate small towns solely on their location close to Larne. This approach satisfies the provisions of soundness test CE2.

3.10

The outcome of this assessment was carried through to a settlement workshop with the members where there was strong support for the upgrade of the four existing villages of Broughshane, Cullybackey, Ahoghill and Portglenone and for Martinstown to be promoted from a small settlement to a village. It was agreed that twelve small settlements should be dedesignated. Members did not agree to recommendation to designate eight new small settlements. The preferred option was aimed at ensuring a sustainable approach to future growth and development and to remove inconsistencies between the settlement hierarchy of the three legacy councils. SGS2 Settlement Hierarchy has evolved through the outworking of the LDP process taking account of issues raised in consultee and councillor engagement. The de-designation of 12 existing settlements and the designation of 8 new small settlements in the plan area represents a realistic and appropriate approach that takes account the sustainability appraisal for each settlement. This approach satisfies soundness test CE2.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3.11

Representors consider that the dPS contains contradictory comments in respect of Greenisland. Greenisland is designated as small town in the SGS2 Settlement Hierarchy. Representors have raised concerns that this designation is contrary to the methodology undertaken to establish the settlement hierarchy. The Council consider that Greenisland should remain a small town due to its lack of services and facilities. Albeit its population is over 5,000 this size of population is considerably less than the population in the three main towns. Position Paper 11 Strategic Settlement Evaluation (DPS- 524) provides context for its position in the settlement hierarchy. In recognition of the status of Greenisland SGS5 Management of Housing Supply applies the same approach to the release of housing as the three main towns. This takes account of the sequential approach for the release of housing land. Paragraphs 5.3.17 and 5.3.19 of the dPS refer to the phasing of housing land to areas where there are live planning permissions and locate new housing in appropriate brownfield sites within the urban footprint of larger towns, suitable sites within the footprint of the main towns and Greenisland is also identified. Even though Greenisland is included in Policy SGS5 it is not on the same footing as the three main towns in the settlement hierarchy. This of itself does not give rise to a contradiction relating to the status of the settlement as clearly SGS2 and SGS5 provide different elements of strategic guidance for the plan area. SGS2 relates to the settlement hierarchy and SGS5 specifically relates to housing supply and whilst there is an interrelationship between these strategic proposals it is not necessary that they duplicate their provisions. Both serve to meet different aspects of the spatial growth for the plan area. This approach is realistic and appropriate and founded on robust evidence base. It satisfies soundness test CE2.

3.12

Portglenone is designated as a village in SGS2 Settlement Hierarchy. Paragraph 6.3 of Technical Supplement 2:Settlement Hierarchy and Strategic Settlement Evaluation (DPS-117) accepts that Portglenone should be retained as a village on account of its populations (some 1,174) falling well below the 5,000 -10,000 NISRA definition of a small town. The evidence indicates that Portglenone has a disproportionately high level of service provision. Technical Supplement 1 Monitoring and Review (DPS-116) provides a monitoring framework for policy SGS1 Settlement Hierarchy. Whilst for now settlements such as Portglenone are allocated to the village tier of the settlement hierarchy, as set out in SGS2 of the dPS, its status and that of other settlements can be considered as part of the monitor and plan review of the LDP process. This approach is realistic and appropriate having regard to the relevant alternatives and is found on a robust evidence base and accords with soundness test CE2 and CE3.

3.13

Taking account of the Housing Evaluation Framework from the RDS the Council used when appraising settlements, Glenoe, was not considered to have the supporting population and facilities to justify designation as a village. The approach as set out in SGS2 relating to the allocation of Glenoe as small settlement is founded on a robust evidence base and is sound in accordance with tests C1 and CE2. Strategic Housing Allocation Strategy

3.14

Section 5.3 of the dPS recognises that planning for future housing growth across the plan area is one of the core functions of the LDP as the provision of housing is key to population growth which in turn provides the critical mass to support the provision of infrastructure and services such as health, education, and community facilities. Paragraph 1.6 of Technical Supplement

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3:Housing (DPS-118) links the delivery of sufficient and suitable housing through to the LDP to assist the Community Plan’s vision to “improve the quality of life for all’. 3.15

Paper 1: Population & Growth, June 2014 (DPS-508) provides the baseline information on population and population growth in the Borough. This is to consider population projections and to assist in identifying the key issues for accommodating balance growth up to 2030. It is appreciated that population does not remain static. Paragraphs 2.5 - 2.11 of DPS-508 provides an analysis the population projections as indicated by NISRA. It identifies that 2012 based population projections for Northern Ireland indicate lower levels of growth considering the 2011 Census results, the decline in inward migrations due to the economic downturn so that natural growth is now. Th driver of projected population increase. Section 3 of Technical Supplement 3 (DPS-118) provides a housing profile for the plan area. It states that the population currently stands at 139,070 with projections of an increase of 2.2% by 2030 to a total of 142,114. The Council provided an updated summary of population projections relative to the plan area (MEAM21) at the IE hearing sessions. Table 1 of this summary sets out ‘Population Projections and estimates data’. This data shows that 2020 mid-year population estimate, some 139,443, is in broad alignment between the historic projections and subsequent populations estimates. Paragraph 2.8 of DPS-508 assumes an annual growth of 0.32% from 2023 onwards (based on the three districts combined rate of growth for 20222023) the populations could increase to around 145,912 by 2030. This evidence indicates the updated projections generally reflect the projections identified in the evidence base for the dPS relating to the future population trends from 2023 onwards as collectively experienced in the plan area. This is demonstrates the predicted growth in the plan area broadly aligns with the evidence bases used to formulate the dPS.

3.16

The evidence provided in Technical Supplement 3 (DPS-118) also indicates that the population in the Borough is ageing, age 65 and over, and that this figure will increase over the plan periods to around 24%. The growing number of elderlies is a key factor in the declining average household size. The dPS aims to take account of these implications in the delivery of appropriate housing in areas accessible to health and community services, as referred to at Policy HOU6 of the dPS.

3.17

The SPPS advocates a ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach to housing provision to ensure that as a minimum, a five-year supply of land for housing is maintained. The dPS Strategic Housing Allocation is set out at strategic proposal SGS3. Paragraph 7.7 to 7.20 of Technical Supplement 3 (DPS-118) details the methodology and information used to arrive at the Strategic Housing Allocation. This elaborates on the broad methodology set out at Appendix A of the dPS and is considered to support the proposed Strategic Housing Allocation.

3.18

The SA (DPS-106, appendix 4) identifies that three alternatives were appraised in respect of the strategic allocation of housing at the dPS stage. Notwithstanding all three options received the same score in the SA, the Council identified that the preferred option (option 1) is a proportionate allocation of housing for settlements within the same tier, according to population at Census 2011, but with some tailoring to reflect the capacity of a settlement and existing facilities as assessed in the Housing Evaluation Framework. Representors considered there to ample justification to consider a reasonable alternative for the distribution of housing between the three main towns and that the majority should go to Ballymena and Carrickfergus. The Council have considered reasonable alternatives in the formulation of their

LDP2021/MEA/PS

evidence base. Only reasonable alternatives need to be considered and not very single possible option. The representations raised in respect of the reasonable alternatives do not undermine the evidence base in relation to the allocation of housing to settlements as set out in SGS3. 3.19

Appendix A, page 315, of the dPS notes that the RDS expresses regional housing needs as Housing Growth Indicators, which are produced as guide for the preparation of LDPs. In consideration of this the Council recognise the HGI is an estimate for guidance, rather than a cap on housing development in the area or a target to be achieved. In April 2016, the DfI published a revised HGI figure of 5,400 dwellings for the Borough for the plan period 20122025, using 2012-based household projections.

3.20

The Further Evidence Report – Housing (DPS-301) provides an update to Technical Supplement 3 (DPS-117) and a further analysis of housing development and supply in the plan area. This update takes account of the revised, September 2019, HGI’s 2016-based. The uplift was the basis for some representors seeking an up lift to the allocation of housing in the dPS. The dPS was published on the 17th September 2019, the revised 2016-based HGI’s were published after the dPS was published. The Further Evidence Report notes that the revised HGI figure of 5,400 dwellings for Mid and East Antrim Borough for the 15-year period, 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2030, used the 2016 based household projections. It also recognises that whilst the figure 5,400 dwellings remained the same as the 2012-based HGI which ultimately represents a reduced figure as the 2012-based HGI covered a 13-year period, 1 April 2012-31 March 2025. This translates to a HGI of 6,230 for the plan period 2015-2030. The Council note this represents a reduction of 13% or 830 less new dwellings being required. Paragraph 3.21 of the Further Evidence Report (DPS-301) considered the possible impact of the 2016-based HGI. As they do not represent a significant variation the Council does not propose to change the strategic housing allocation as set out in SGS3 of the dPS. We accept that the further evidence provided takes account of the revised 2016-based HGI’s, published in 2019, and provides a robust evidence base in support of the housing allocation specified in the dPS. Accordingly, projecting the figure of 5,400 on a pro rata basis to 2030 for the period 2012-2030 gives a housing figure of 7,477 (table A2 appendix A of the dPS) and sets out a coherent strategy from which policies will logically flow. For the plan period, 2015 to 2030, this translates to a housing figure of 6,230.

3.21

SGS3 Strategic Allocations for Housing to Settlements in the policy head note makes provisions for 4,256 dwellings with the settlements for the period 2018-2030 and 350-400 new dwellings in the countryside over the same period. This figure stated in SGS3 is different to the housing allocation figure referred to in Table A1 of Appendix A and as reflected in Social Objective c). The difference arises as the figures relate to different timescales. PM-005 seeks to add a footnote to the first sentence of the justification and amplification text, at paragraph 5.3.8, to provide clarity between the time period used in Social Objective c) of 7,500 dwellings for the period 2012 to 2030 and SGS3 which relates to lesser period 2018-2030. This clarification is appropriate so that the evidence base relating to the figure stated in SGS3 logically flow. It also clarifies that the housing allocation is not a reduction from the figure proposed in the POP 2017. RA006 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE1 and CE2.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3.22

The Council have considered the sustainability performance of the three main towns with the application of the RDS Housing Evaluation Framework to the top tier and are satisfied that the allocations (housing and economic land) will not restrict growth as there is an oversupply of both in all the three settlements. The plan and review process provides the Council with an opportunity to monitor each settlement and adjust if required. We are not persuaded that any further sustainability of the three settlements is required at this stage to inform the dPS.

3.23

We have considered the representations who are seeking an amendment to increase the housing allocations set out in the dPS. The evidence base presented in the context of SGS3 for the Strategic Housing of Settlements is robust and supports the approach and figures set out in the dPS. Taking account of the representations seeking an increase in the housing allocations we consider there is no justification for any increase at this stage. Accordingly, we find that SGS3 provides a strategic policy to provide an ongoing viable 5-year housing supply of land for housing in the plan area over the plan period. This approach satisfies the test of soundness.

3.24

The strategic allocation takes account of the RDS as growth is focused to the main towns and is sequentially reduced through the tiers in the settlement hierarchy. The dPS approach also takes into consideration the plan, monitor, and manage approach for housing development in the countryside aligning with the overarching aim of the SPPS in regard to development in the countryside. Table A2, Appendix A of the dPS indicates that the allocations to small towns and villages have increased by 1% respectively. This includes a reduction in the number of small settlements consolidating the strategic allocations at this tier. The housing allocation to the countryside represents a 6.2% decrease relative to 2011 whilst taking account of provisions for new dwellings in the countryside in accordance with policies provided in the SPPS. The overall approach is to reduce development in the countryside. This takes account of the of regional policies in the SPPS relating to sustainable patterns of development. The dPS therefore aims to strike a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, whiles supporting and sustaining rural communities, consistent with the RDS and the SPPS.

3.25

At page 48 of the Public Consultation report (DPS-142) the Council state that the SGS3 uses the HGI’s as a broad parameter for the housing allocations process to produce the ‘notional’ housing allocation figures. Figure A4, at page 323, of the dPS details the notional Housing Allocation 2018-2030 in relation to existing approvals/potential urban capacity and windfall sites in the three main towns (Ballymena, Carrickfergus, and Larne). Appendix A, Figure A5 and A6, at pages 324 and 325, of the dPS show the notional housing figures the small towns and villages. This shows that potential housing land supply significant exceeds housing allocations to settlements base on the HGI. It is also evident (Appendix A, figures A4, A5 and A6 of the dPs) that irrespective of allocations that existing commitments can be developed and for most of the settlements this largely meets or exceeds the notional allocation. The Council also identify that phase 2 lands will be brought forward in main towns and in the small towns where urban capacity sites or windfall potential would not meet affordable housing need, additional land may be zoned for housing if it is sustainable to do so. Furthermore, the HGIs will continue to be reviewed by the DfI, these will inform the LPP stage of the plan process and the periodic reviews of the LDP.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3.26

Paragraph 6.139 of the SPPS the also indicates that housing allocations should be informed by Urban Capacity Studies. Technical Supplement 3: Housing - Appendix 1 – Urban Capacity Study (DPS-119) was submitted as part of the plan strategy documents. The Council note at paragraph 1.2 of the Urban Capacity Study that it is an interim report and further work will be carried out prior to the next stage of the plan process. Paragraph 3.0 of the Urban Capacity Study states its main aim is to: a) to ascertain the appropriate quantum of potential housing within the urban footprint of the larger settlements, as part of the overall housing supply; and b) to enable the LDP (at LLP) to adopt a sequential approach to the allocation of housing sites, as required by regional planning policies. It is not the purpose of the Urban Capacity Study to analysis or assess individual sites at this stage of the plan process. The omission to consider the merits of individual sites within settlements, such as Ballymena, Carrickfergus at this stage, via the Urban Capacity Study, or other means does not give rise to an issue of soundness. These issues are site specific, and it is logical and realistic that they are considered in at the LPP stage of the process.

3.27

Appendix A, of the dPS, provides context for the allocation of housing to settlement tiers and the countryside. It states, at page 315, that taking account of the POP and in line with the Spatial Growth Strategy, the strategic housing allocation sets out to significantly increase on the 2011 Census status quo in terms of the proportion of households in main towns, and to marginally increase the percentage in small towns, villages, and small settlements. The mains towns are considered to be the most sustainable housing locations in the plan area and this is considered to provide a sound foundation to the approach to a sustainable housing allocation. Paragraph 7.10 of Technical Supplement 3 (DPS-177) notes that the Council applied the RDS Housing Evaluation Framework (HEF) to assist judgements on the allocation of housing growth. Using the broad scoring it was applied to the top three tiers of settlements.

3.28

Arguments were presented that housing completions should not be deducted from the housing allocation at or only those from 2015 should be deducted give this is the start period for the plan. Paragraph 6.139 of the SPPS provides in bullet points matters for housing allocations in LDPs should be informed by. It includes an allowance for existing housing commitments including dwellings already constructed, approvals not yet commenced and residential development proposals likely to be approved. The Council’s approach where completions built from 2012 have informed the notional housing allocation as the period of the relevant HGI relates to 2012 to 2025. Therefore, dwellings built from then until 2018 (date of the latest housing monitor prior to the publication of the dPS) have been deducted is realistic and appropriate. Representors stated that there appears to a disjunction between what is happening in the plan area when compared with the allocations for each settlement. Representors consider that for this reason the allocations are out of sync with the build rates and as a result the allocations could be met within 7-year period. This places a necessity to undertake a review. The Council state that past build rates are not a key issue. The key issue is that the future build rates need to meet the anticipated housing need over the remainder of the plan. The local evidence in respect of build rates, of itself, does not give rise to a matter of soundness. Paragraph 5.26 of the SPPS reinforce the statutory requirements to monitor the LDP on an annual and five yearly basis to ensure that the LDP is kept up to date and reflects and responds to emerging issues, so the plan process is genuinely plan lead. Housing completion (build rates) are part of the Council’s annual housing monitor. Should the build rates exceed the allocation a review of the LDP should facilitate the correction of any predicted trajectory.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3.29

The housing monitor will take account of existing commitments including recent approval for housing in the small settlement of Cargan. This existing commitment will contribute to the notional allocation for that village. Such approach is therefore flexible and does give rise to an issue of soundness in respect of the allocations for that settlement. The Council at page 55 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) acknowledge that there are several long-standing sites which have not come forward to deliver houses to date. The plan review will consider the release and progress delivery of Phase 1 housing land to provide adequate and available housing land supply. Further analysis of housing site will be considered at the LPP stage and their release and delivery will also be the subject of monitor and review.

3.30

The evidence included in Appendix A of the dPS demonstrates that whilst all sites may not be suitable there remains a significant ‘cushion’ over and above the notional allocation in existing settlements. For these reasons the Council considers there is sufficient flexibility for the LDP to react to variants such as housing need, population, and economic factors. The evidence presented at Table 15 of the Further Evidence Report – Housing (DPS-301) reinforces the Council’s position where is evident that for most settlements the difference in the notional allocation figure and the live residential planning permissions is exceeded in most settlements. There are only five settlements (1 small town and 4 villages) where the difference in the notional allocation figure and live planning permissions is short of the allocation. Accordingly, the level of existing commitments in settlements, which largely meet the notional housing allocation for settlements, indicates provision of an on-going 5 year supply of housing land. Should there be a shortfall before 2030 then the plan review will address this issue.

3.31

The Council in their approach to the allocation of housing have engaged with Belfast City Council and other Councils through the Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group and with other neighbouring Council’s in the process. This engagement will continue with these Council’s going forward. The relationship between Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and Belfast City Council has been considered. At page 58 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS142) the Council state that Belfast City Council do not consider it necessary to overspill new housing in their Council area. This approach is realistic and appropriate. It does not raise a concern in respect of soundness.

3.32

SGS5 Management of Housing Supply of the dPS makes provision for the release of housing land including affordable housing need. Policy HOU5 Affordable Housing in Settlements of the dPS also makes operational policy provision for housing needs to be considered and addressed in the Borough. This includes any specific housing need for settlements such as Portglenone. As the plan is read in the round there is no need to repeat and this requirement within the SGS3 for the plan to be sound.

3.33

The dPS makes provisions for a transport strategy and includes operational policy to address these issues. Likewise, the dPS makes provisions for the stewardship of the built and natural environment. As the plan is read in the round it is not necessary for the strategic allocations policy to repeat these provisions. This does not give rise to an issue of soundness. Protection of Zoned Housing Land

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3.34

The dPS makes provision for non-residential uses on land zoned for housing in settlements to be permitted in accordance with two exceptions set out within SGS4. Irrespective of the phasing of housing land for the policy to be sound it does not need to differentiate between Phase 1 and Phase 2 housing.

3.35

The justification and amplification of SGS4 sets out the intent of this policy as it indicates that sites will be selected for zoning on the LPP because of their sustainability, and it is therefore important that these sustainable sites for housing are not lost to competing land uses. This policy does not prevent a sustainability assessment in respect of current zoned housing sites in the respective extant plans covering the plan area. This matter does raise a concern of soundness. Management of Housing Supply

3.36

Paragraph 1.3 of Technical Supplement 3 (DPS-117) recognises that the LDP has an important role to proactively facilitate the delivery of land for homes which meet the full range of anticipated housing needs over the plan period. SGS5 seeks to make provision for the management of housing supply for the plan area. Paragraph 5.3.24 of the justification and amplification for SGS5 recognises that whilst the LDP must take account of the RDS, the LDP also must deal with the legacy of existing extant plans that defined settlement limits and designated housing zonings to meet much higher population/household formation projection figures.

3.37

Representors made comments that phasing the release of housing land for the plan area is unnecessary and that the Council have not provided an in-depth rationale as to the need for phasing. The first sentence of SGS5 sets out the rationale for this policy is to provide a managed release of housing land in settlements, stating the following sequential approach will be applied. The sequential approach relates to Main towns and Greenisland and then Remaining Small towns. This approach account of the SPPS to provide for the managed release of housing land, in line a ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach.

3.38

The SA (DPS-106, Appendix 4) appraised two options for the managed release of housing. One alternative was to not apply a phasing approach to the release of land zoned for housing. It is noted that extant plans for the plan area do not include phased land. The SA considered that this alternative would allow for housing land to be developed within the urban fringe before the land within the urban footprint. It was considered this option would not achieve a compact form or sustainable pattern of residential development, including maximising the use of existing infrastructure and services. We are satisfied that this is a realistic and appropriate approach for the management of housing supply for the plan area.

3.39

The Council, at page 63, of their Public Consultation Report (DPS- 142) state that phasing is necessary to actively manage the release of legacy housing zonings and Whiteland outside the urban footprint of the plan area’s four largest towns, especially Ballymena. The Council accept that phasing will restrict these towns but only in the short term. Paragraph 2.11, Page 5 of Technical Supplement 2 (DPS-117) notes the inconsistencies between the settlement hierarchies of the existing development plans in terms of number and types of tiers and the quantity of settlements included within these tiers. Additionally, the document also notes the

LDP2021/MEA/PS

variation in settlements due to their size, form, function, and capacity to accommodate growth. 3.40

Management of housing supply by phasing takes account of the RDS and SPPS approach to sequential housing development in the interests of sustainable development. Paragraph 5.3.28 of the justification and amplification of SGS5 states that during reviews of the LDP, consideration will be given to the level of commitment and investment made by landowners to release and progress the delivery of housing land. Where no demonstrable progress has been made, consideration will be given to the re-designating the land at review stage. This is reflective of a sustainable approach to the ‘plan, monitor and manage’ for the management of housing supply. The evidence base is robust to support the phased managed release of housing land for the plan area.

3.41

The evidence as summarised within appendix A of the dPS, indicates that at the time the dPS was published existing approvals in the main towns had already met their notional housing allocation. Live approvals do fall short in Carrickfergus and Larne, however the Council consider these can be met through urban capacity sites. Taking account of the existing commitments (live permissions and previously developed land) these provide a realistic means of delivering phase 1 housing through the LPP stage of the process. For the main towns and Greenisland where it is demonstrated that there is insufficient uncommitted land to meet the housing needs the release of phase 2 land will be considered. This is explained at paragraph 5.3.29 of the dPS. The Council’s evidence at page 69 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS142) takes account of the out-of-date extant plan for Ballymena. Nonetheless the Council do conclude that there remains sufficient land to address the housing need of Ballymena and Kells and Connor up to 2030. Where there has been insufficient land as identified in settlements such as Ballygally and Glenarm such provisions can be examined at the LPP stage. Therefore, we are satisfied the dPS approach reflects local circumstances relevant to the plan area. The dPS provides a sustainable approach to the management of housing supply taking account of the provisions prescribed by Planning Policy Statement 12 Housing in Settlements (Appendix 2 Managing the Release of Housing Land) and the SPPS specifically at paragraph 6.141.

3.42

The Council has considered the release of land outside of the settlements for Phase 2 land. At page 64 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) the Council firstly recognise that such an approach is contrary to the sustainably direction prescribed by the RDS and SPPS. The evidence base indicates there is sufficient capacity at the urban fringe of the main towns to avoid extending the settlement limits. As already noted through the monitor and review of the where an insufficient capacity arises over the plan period within a settlement to meet either the housing allocation to 2030 or affordable housing then sites outside the settlement limits could be considered. We accept this is a realistic and appropriate approach to the further release of housing lands.

3.43

The Council stated that PM-006 and PM-007 should be made to criterion b) of SGS5. The proposed modifications provide further clarification and support the intent of the policy requirements it also reflects the Council’s evidence base to explain their approach to the management of housing supply. We do not consider it necessary to add the word ‘normally’ to add flexibility to the policy. These PMs as presented in DPS-143 provide clarity to ensure a coherent strategy from which policies and allocations for the phasing of housing land in the

LDP2021/MEA/PS

plan area will logically flow. We accept that these proposed modifications are necessary for soundness. RA007 and RA008 are necessary to satisfy the soundness test CE1. 3.44

SGS5 does not make provision for zoning housing land in villages. The policy as worded is silent on this matter. PM-008 inserts another layer to the sequential approach for villages and small settlements. This wording helpfully explains the plans approach to addressing the management of housing supply by not zoning land for housing in these settlements. PM-009 adds text to the justification of amplification text at paragraph 5.3.31 to also explain that to retain flexibility for meeting various needs e.g. economic or community uses adds to the explanation of the approach in the dPS. To provide a coherent strategy from which policies and allocations flow such explanation is necessary in both the headnote of SGS5 and its justification and amplification. RA009 is required to satisfy soundness test CE1.

3.45

Representors consider that allowances should be made for not all existing commitments being built. Taking account of the local circumstances and as reflected at Table A3, Appendix A, page 321 of the dPS there is the potential for the existing live residential planning permissions in settlements to deliver the majority of the housing growth requirements for the plan area until 2030. The delivery of the commitments will be reviewed at LPP stage of the process. At Page 67 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) the Council note there is also the additional potential for windfall units of some 5,667 units (Further Evidence Report- Housing DPS- 301) in the main and small towns and there is also settlement capacity sites in the villages. The Council present that this far exceeds the remaining allocation of 582 housing units not met by the existing housing commitments. The evidence base indicates that there is substantial potential within the urban fringe of the settlements particularly the main towns of Ballymena, Larne and Carrickfergus to compensate for not all the existing commitments being built. We are satisfied that the dPS provides reasonable flexibility to compensate for the existing housing commitments not coming forward. The LDP process it not a means to revisit existing commitments or put an embargo on live permissions due to their sustainability attributes. Phasing the release of the housing land is realistic and appropriate having considered alternatives and is founded on a robust evidence base in accordance with CE3. Monitoring and review of LDP will enable the dPS to respond to any shortfall or address sustainability of sites coming forward over the plan period.

3.46

Concerns were raised that the policy approach may favour small towns. The Council at page 64 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) reiterate that policy approach takes account of the RDS requirement to adopt a sequential approach for the release of land with settlements which have a population over 5,000 in the interest of achieving compact urban forms. Furthermore, due the proposed sequential approach should yield greater volumes than the small towns. In respect of the sequential management of housing supply the settlement of Greenisland, which sites within the settlement hierarchy tier as a small town has been linked with the main towns. At page 46 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) the Council explain that Greenisland was include with the three main towns in SGS5 as it had a population of over 5000. Greenisland is the only small town in the plan area with this size of population. Therefore, to take account of the SPPS (page 72) the LDP should adopt a sequential approach for the release of housing land for settlements such as Greenisland because of its population size. This approach is consistent with soundness test C1 and C3.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

3.47

Concerns were raised that the phasing of housing land should correlate with sufficient WWTW infrastructure capacity and a lack of this consideration in the SA. At page 64 of the Public Consultation document the Council justify that this is not necessary giving the changing nature of the WWTW capacity. As already noted at paragraph 3.6.6 some of the WWTW for the plan area are programmed for an upgrade by 2027. Furthermore, we note that Policy WWI1 Development relying on Non-Mains Wastewater Infrastructure makes provision to consider development proposals that are not in the position to connect to the WWTW. We are satisfied the dPS has made provision for the option when there is inadequate WWTW capacity. This concern, of itself, does not raise an issue of soundness.

3.48

Paragraph 7.38 and 7.39 of Technical Supplement 3: Housing (DPS-118) considers the issue of Housing Needs Assessment/Housing Market Analysis. The Council at page 55 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) state that flexibility has been built into the dPS through the identification of land supply that exceeds the notional housing allocation and through the required review process it will ensure it is fit for purpose. SGS5 also allows for this flexibility in the small towns in relation to affordable housing. This is covered at criterion d) of the policy head note for SGS5. This policy has therefore taken account of the social and affordable housing needs and will work across with the provisions of Policy HOU5 Affordable Housing in Settlements. We are satisfied that this approach is flexible to enable the dPS to deal with changing circumstances in accordance with CE4.

3.49

In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 41-70 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the spatial growth strategy; settlement hierarchy and the strategic housing allocation strategy of the dPS. We have also considered the submitted counter objections and the representations to the Schedule of the Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA006-RA009 the approach set out in this part of the dPS is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

4.0

Economic Development Strategy

4.1

SGS 6 Strategic Allocation of Land for Economic Development of the dPS sets out the overarching quantum of land for economic development across the three main towns. The broad methodology underpinning the proposed allocation is set out in Table 2.1 of Section 2 of Technical Supplement 5: Economic Development (DPS -121). Technical supplement 5 comprises three separate reports (DPS-122, DPS123 & DPS124).

4.2

The full extent of evaluation required by the RDS Employment Land Evaluation Framework (ELEF) has not yet been carried out, Stage 3 is not complete. Paragraph 7.6 of Technical Supplement 5 (DPS-121) indicates how account has been taken of the evidence base in the first two stages. The zoning of individual sites will be considered as part of the LPP stage with Key Site Requirement (KSR), if considered to be appropriate. Policy GP1 and Policies ECD1 – ECD4 will consider any necessary mitigation measures to reduce the negative effects and promote the positive effects for economic development.

4.3

During stage 1 of the ELEF Process (Taking Stock of the Existing Situation) the Council identified the three main urban centres as the key locations to support economic growth. Consistent paragraph 11.4 of DPPN 7:The Plan Strategy the Council undertake a survey or review of existing economic development sites to ensure that any baseline information is up to date to justify its policy approach towards economic development, industry and commerce for its area. Considerable weight was attached to the fact that the three main towns are the locations where much of the land currently zoned for economic development through existing area plans remains undeveloped.

4.4

Appendix C of the CBRE Availability and Supply Report (DPS-123) considered and quantified the existing supply of land for economic development for the plan area. The figures for undeveloped land within zonings set out in Tables 4.1-4.3 of this report are based on a MEABC 2017 Industrial Land survey. This amounts to 156ha. SGS6 Strategic Allocation of Land for Economic Development allocates circa 167ha of industry and business land distributed across the three main towns within the council area. MEABC explained the differences between the figures in the evidence base and in SGS6 at the IE hearing sessions. In Carrickfergus the dBMAP zoning at Trailcock Road was removed (1.2ha) and the size of the Kilroot zoning corrected. This resulted in the 75.4ha figure at Table 4.3 of DPS-121 being reduced to the 73ha in SGS6. In Larne the 46.1ha in Table 4.2 of DPS-121 was reduced to 43ha due to advice from CBRE relating to land at Larne East which is more appropriate for another use. The more significant difference in respect of Ballymena is considered later in this section of the report.

4.5

The Industrial Economic Land Monitor 2018 (DPS-122) updated the remaining supply of zoned economic land not yet developed to 188h within the plan area. The 2020 Economic Land Monitor increased this figure to some 219h. MEAM06 was provided by Council at the hearing sessions to update the latest available information based on the 2022 report to 201ha. Variations are to be expected over time as demand from businesses open and close. It is not feasible to continually update the evidence base within the technical supplements. However, as the overall quantum of economic development land provided for within SGS6 is still available the difference in figures is not necessarily fatal to the robustness of the dPS evidence base as it is appreciated, they can change over time.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

4.6

The stage 2 of the ELEF process relates to Understanding Future Requirements. An independent evidence-based employment land review was undertaken by UUEPC ‘Assessing Employment Space requirements across the Council 2017-2030’ (DPS-124). The main forecasts for employment space are that the Council may gain an additional 768 to 4122 jobs by 2030 (dependant on various scenarios). The upper scenario shows between 86,346 and 107,933 square metres of anticipated demand. This demonstrates a positive outlook for an additional 5,871 square metres of small business workspace and an additional 19,531 square metres of general office space. As well as this modest floorspace the thrust of the dPS is to direct new offices to town centres meaning the supply of undeveloped zoned land previously referred to is well in excess of any requirement that is likely to be generated by the need for small business workspace. The policy support for appropriate development of offices is provided for within Policies ECD1 and RET1 of the dPS.

4.7

In response to questions on how much economic land would be required to fulfil this floorspace requirement MEAM07 was submitted by the Council at hearing sessions. Rather than including the workforce jobs per sector as in Table 5 of DPS-124, this information focused on the industrial and business uses, B1A, B1B, B1C, B2, B8 and B mixed class. While these classes are not specifically defined by The Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 we accept that they are broadly equivalent. When the employment need, based on the upper figure, is extrapolated it shows 68,898 square metres of employment floorspace is needed for the plan area over the plan period. The Council developed five different scenarios for a conversion to a hectarage requirement culminating in the conclusion that between 20.19h and 27.08ha is required to accommodate the anticipated floorspace throughout the plan period. As with any such forecast there may be a variety of methodologies that could be employed. However, there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the chosen approach is not appropriate or robust. Based on the plan area’s average there is a forecast need for an additional 23.36ha of employment land over the plan period. This is approximately 14% of the 167ha allocation within SGS6 Strategic Allocation of Land for Economic Development. The allocation is generous and, in this respect, has taken account of the SPPS.

4.8

Local Council policy frameworks were also considered. The Amplify Integrated Economic Development Strategy for Mid and East Antrim 2018-2030 (DPS-604) sets a vision for the Council to become Northern Ireland’s leading centre for advanced manufacturing and agrifood with recognised capabilities in tourism, financial and business services, and digital technologies. Para 5.4.3 of the dPS states that whilst ‘Amplify’ initially targeted 2,200 net jobs between 2017-21, it is now recognised that, given recent manufacturing job losses in the borough, employment is now not expected to return to 2010 levels until 2030, with ‘Amplify’ now anticipating that the continued growth will be largely jobless growth over the plan period. This would suggest that job creation is more likely to be at the lower end of the UUPEC spectrum. This is because the emerging priority sectors in the plan area are likely to further economic growth through increased productivity (GVA) and export potential rather than through large scale employment provision. The commitment to sustainable jobs is also reinforced through the Council’s Corporate Plan 2019-2023 (DPS-601). It seeks to grow and diversify the economy in the wake of significant manufacturing job losses. The Community Plan ‘Putting people First’ (DPS -603 page 30) includes sustainable jobs as one of its five key themes.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

4.9

Where paragraph 6.92 of the SPPS identifies a fundamental role for LDPs in respect of economic development, industry, and commerce, it refers to the DPD as a whole and not just the dPS. Identification of a “new” portfolio of sites as required by stage 3 of the ELEF is a matter for the LPP stage of overall LDP process as recognised by DPPN 8: The Local Policies Plan. The approach in the dPS has taken account of Stages 1 and 2 of the RDS ELEF. Soundness test C1 is satisfied.

4.10

We accept that the Council has utilised the best evidence available when the dPS was being prepared. We consider the evidence to be robust, taking account of the local circumstances, allowing the Council to consider there is a generous supply of economic land across the plan area to accommodate the future requirements. Soundness test CE2 is satisfied.

4.11

Considering each town's uniqueness as part of an approach of defining target industries for each is not part of the dPS strategic allocation for economic development. While delivery is mainly market driven, any individual features that are relevant to the type of jobs or industry being targeted in specific areas would be part of the assessment at the LPP stage.

4.12

The amount of land allocated to Ballymena was subject to multiple representation relating to the relationship between the 51ha allocated to the town in SGS6 and the evidence base. Paragraph 6.82 and 6.92 of the SPPS requires a choice and range of sites alongside the requirement for the provision of a generous supply of land. As per Technical Supplement 5 (DPS-121) at paragraph 4.7 the Council recognises that more land is necessary beyond that zoned in Ballymena. The question of how much choice is required calls for effective judgement.

4.13

To take account of matters raised at the POP stage in respect of a choice of sites within Ballymena the Council assessed the average size of an existing employment site in the plan area at 18ha. Some 17ha was added to the allocation for Ballymena to reflect this requirement. By the time of publication of dPS in 2019 the original 35.34ha figure in Table 4.1 (DPS-121) was reduced to 34ha (as per the 2020 monitor). In combination with the additional requirement of 17h Table 5.5 at SGS6 allocates 51ha to Ballymena. MEAM06 (page 39) as provided by the Council provides the latest position. It shows the 34ha in the 2020 monitor is now slightly reduced to 32.7h. While it is a reduction in available zoned economic development land, it is a small reduction, and in the particular context of the representations would increase the difference between existing supply and the land required to fulfil the allocation allowing for this additional amount of land to be zoned in Ballymena at the LPP stage of the process. As land supply is an evolving issue these differences between SGS6 for Ballymena and the evidence base are not fatal to the consistency tests, in particular soundness test CE2. We are satisfied that the soundness requirements of test C3 are satisfied in respect the provision for Ballymena as a range and choice of sites can be accommodated as required by the SPPS.

4.14

Section 4 of the CBRE report (DPS-123) confirmed that in general much of the economic zoned land reserve remains fit for purpose. It provides a first stage assessment of ‘the best’ employment sites to be retained and protected and the identification of sites that should clearly be released for other uses. By virtue of the provisions within paragraph 2.2.4 of the dPS the existing employment zonings will remain in place until adoption of the LPP regardless of whether CBRE identified constraints or suitability issues. This is a consequence of the twostage process. SGS6 does not carry forward those sites to be zoned. It is more appropriate that

LDP2021/MEA/PS

a comprehensive review is undertaken at LPP stage of the plan process when all the information is in place including any arising from consideration of Stage 3 of the ELEF, and matters raised during consultation. Factors such as a sites suitability for modern business, site constraints and viability can only be properly considered at the LPP stage. This allows for consideration of choice and range of sites as well as accommodating the total area. In not setting out the location of the sites to fulfil SGS6 the approach taken is consistent with soundness test CE1. It also accords with soundness test CE4, as the stage 3 assessment at LPP will allow for the removal and adjustment of existing zonings based on specific characteristics ensuring the LDP is reasonably flexible to deal with changing circumstances. 4.15

Representors refer to the statement at 5.4.9 of the dPS that there is a generous supply remaining which would be “sufficient to provide the anticipated amount of employment floorspace and jobs over the plan period’. This reflects the evidence base within the industrial monitor compared to that within the UUEPC report. MEAM07 now further assists and shows the demand for floorspace (23.36ha) in context of a sufficient supply of zoned economic land not yet developed. We do not consider paragraph 5.4.9 to be ambiguous in context. However, we do consider it necessary for the implementation of SGS6 that the dPS is clear that the allocation will not be exclusively provided by the undeveloped existing zoned sites. Paragraph 5.4.11 refers to the new portfolio of sites to be identified and refers to the completion of Stage 3 the ELEF process. Reference to the allocation at Ballymena providing for an additional site not currently zoned is omitted despite reference to this within the evidence base. The consideration at LPP will also include further analysis of the initial information within the CBRE report including the analysis of those sites identified therein as more suitable for other uses. RA010 is that paragraph 5.4.11 is amended to indicate that MEABC will not simply be relying on previously zoned land at LPP and make reference to a further range and choice in Ballymena.

4.16

The final sentence of the SGS6 headnote states that ‘These zonings will be complemented by Policy ECD2 Retention of Economic Development Land which aims to protect land in settlements currently or last used for economic development use’. This aspect is explained in paragraphs 5.4.10 & 5.4.20. We do not consider this to be ambiguous. The last paragraph of the policy headnote takes account of the SPPS. A change to the wording to provide for economic development use inside the urban footprint is not necessary to satisfy soundness.

4.17

Representors consider there is a need to be more aspirational to bring more jobs to the plan area. Soundness test CE2 requires that the evidence base is robust to justify the selected approach. Further consideration of net developable areas and appropriate scale and quantum of development is to be considered at the LPP stage of the process.

4.18

Not identifying industry in the small-town tier (as set out at paragraph 5.4.17) is consistent with the SPPS. This is due to their location near the larger towns which means they are likely to benefit from the concentration of sustainable economic growth in these areas. We have not been made aware of any conflict arising that requires assessment of those small towns closest to the adjoining Council boundaries under soundness test CE1.

4.19

A revised allocation of economic land based on the population in each town would not meet soundness test CE1 as it does not take into account other matters that require consideration

LDP2021/MEA/PS

as part of the distribution of the strategic allocation including the historic context, accessibility and infrastructure. 4.20

Paragraph 5.4.7 refers to other economic initiatives in the MEABC area. PM-010 seeks to extend the reference to ‘City Deal’ to Belfast Region City Deal. As a cross cutting initiative the modification is not necessary for soundness. However, as there is more than one City Deal in Northern Ireland, and it is referred to as Belfast Region City Deal within the evidence base (including at paragraph 2.23 of DPS -125) its inclusion is sensible. This is a matter for Council prior to adoption.

4.21

In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 71-73 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the strategic allocation of land for economic development. Other than the issues already addressed above in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of the Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA010 that the approach set out in SGS6 Strategic Allocation of Land for Economic Development is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

5.0

Retail Strategy

5.1

The SPPS, at paragraph 6.270, promotes established town centres as the appropriate first choice location for retailing. Section 5.5 of the dPS set out the retail strategy for the plan area and identifies a retail hierarchy at SGS7. Technical Supplement 6 Retailing and Town Centres (DPS-125) provides an overview of the existing retail sector for the plan area. The health check takes sufficient account of the indicators set within paragraph 6.274 of the SPPS to satisfy soundness test C3.

5.2

Appendix D of Technical Supplement 6 The Retail and Leisure Capacity Study (DPS-127), prepared by Nexus, provides detail on the capacity for new retail and leisure development, as well as strategic and operational advice relating to the scale, nature, and location of this development in the foreseeable future. We are satisfied that it follows an accepted retail assessment methodology, and the plans empirical evidence base is robust. Soundness test CE2 is satisfied in respect of these reports.

5.3

Paragraph 6.281 of the SPPS sets out an order of preference for town centre uses namely the: primary retail core; town centre; edge of centre; and out of centre locations, only where sites are accessible by a choice of good public transport modes. The dPS, at paragraph 5.5.5, aims to define the network and hierarchy of centres appropriate to plan area. Table 5.6 of the Strategic Growth Strategy SGS7 Retail Hierarchy places the three town centres of Ballymena, Carrickfergus and Larne at the head of the hierarchy, supported by five small town centres; then two Local Centres and then ten village centres.

5.4

Representors consider the lack of policy provision for district centres is unsound as there are existing sites which could be considered as district centres. The retail hierarchy as proposed does not make provision to designate or identify district centres for the plan area in the LDP process. The district centre tier formed part of the retail hierarchy within the POP (DPS-501 page 76) and achieved general support from 61% of those that responded, others considered they would be harmful to the higher tier retail locations. As set out in Table 7.1 Amendments to the POP Preferred Option for Key Issues in respect of SGS7 the district centre tier was subsequently removed. This was based on the judgement of the Council’s retail consultants (DPS-125 page 25 and DPS-126, Retail Hierarchy at page 8). Compliance with soundness test P2 does not require that the preferred options are taken forward into the dPS, only that the responses are taken account of.

5.5

Unlike other council areas, this Council area did not have any previously designated district centres and therefore this was a business-as-usual approach. The evidence demonstrates the potential district centres in the plan area was considered in Technical Supplement 6 (DPS-126) at page 2 based on the PPS5 definition.We accept that this definition would benefit from updating considering more modern retail practices and trends in particular the recent widespread closures of banks and building societies both on highstreets and alongside existing retail provision.

5.6

PPS5 has been superseded by the SPPS. While paragraph 6.276 of the SPPS refers to district and local centres it contains no differentiation between their role and function. Both are described as a focus for local everyday shopping and with a role complimentary to the role and function of the town centre. SGS7 Retail Hierarchy assists with the differentiation by

LDP2021/MEA/PS

offering a description for Local Centres as locations which provide for (or have the potential to provide) a limited range of shops, services, business, and community facilities to serve the immediate area. A district centre, according to the regional retail hierarchy would sit above a local centre and as such this should be the minimum level of service provision assessed when considering if an area could be considered a district centre. 5.7

Paragraph 6.277 of the SPPS is silent on what stage of the plan process the spatial extent of retail designations should be defined. In the two-tier plan making system, the plan strategy is where the network of existing centres are identified. Therefore, as a tier in the regionally defined retail hierarchy the dPS would be the mechanism to recognise district centres. This is consistent with paragraph 20.3 of DPPN 8 Local Policies Plan. On this basis, any consideration of the existence of a District Centre at LPP stage of the process would be contrary to the hierarchy and would be difficult to accommodate at the LPP stage or any subsequent review of the dPS.

5.8

There is no evidence that any capacity could not be accommodated within the hierarchy as presented in SGS7 and therefore the omission of the district centre tier would be contrary to soundness if there is an existing centre that preforms that role and has been omitted. Consideration of the existence of such an area is complicated by the review of retail boundaries being more appropriate at LP stage. We have reviewed the current role of those areas suggested in Technical Supplement 6 - Retail Hierarchy (DPS-126) and we do not find any to function as a district centre for the plan area.

5.9

Bridge Retail Park was not assessed against the role of a district centre within the Retail Hierarchy Report, Technical Supplement 6 (DPS-126) although we were advised by the retail consultant at the IE that they consider it lacks a community focus role with minimal services leading to their conclusion it is an out of centre location. Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) sets outs the Council’s response to the request for its inclusion as a district centre including the context of the Larne Link Road superstore. While retail boundaries would be a site-specific matter, in this case we must consider the existing provision to understand if it could fulfil the role of a district centre. Backing onto the superstore is a large soft furnishings store, alongside a petfood store and a large charity store. Having visited the retail facilities to understand how they function we observed the large superstore occupied by a UK multiple with a full range of facilities. Both areas have separate access and egress and car parks, and while walkable and in close proximity they do not appear to function a single centre. We consider it is an out of centre location. While we note the example of another district centre provided in evidence we consider this is distinguishable by its planning history as a BMA centre that was redeveloped after the time of its designation as a district centre with a shared car park and access assisting its coherence as a single entity.

5.10

The Council took account of paragraph 6.276 of the SPPS which requires planning authorities to retain and consolidate existing district centres rather than requiring or encouraging the identification of such new centres. Neither this nor paragraph 6.277 says, ‘must designate’. The fact that the Council has not introduced such a designation does not lead to failure of soundness test C3.

5.11

As an urban retail function local centres are third in the hierarchy in SGS7. As less sustainable rural locations village centres at the bottom. We do not consider the position of the two lower

LDP2021/MEA/PS

tiers in the retail hierarchy to be misaligned with the settlement hierarchy at SGS2; it is clear from footnote 6 that the village centre (tier 4) applies to both villages and small settlements as set out. Given there are corresponding tiers within SGS2 the approach taken is not contrary to soundness test CE1. No issues for implementation of arise under soundness test CE3. 5.12

PM-011 relates the status of Portglenone as a small town centre in SGS7 compared to a village in the settlement strategy at SGS2. The insertion of the additional text after paragraph 5.5.7 explains that its retail offer far exceeds other villages. Further detail is in the retail hierarchy paper (DPS-126). There is no inconsistency between the two strategies that would result in failure of soundness test CE1. The additional text RA011 is necessary for the plan to provide coherent strategy that logically flows.

5.13

It is not a requirement that the dPS defines what is ‘necessary local services’ as referred to at paragraph 5.5.8 of the dPS. The description for both the applicable tiers (local and village centres) within Table 5.6 of SGS7 Retail Hierarchy provides sufficient detail and examples to comply with soundness test CE3. We are satisfied that this approach takes account of the local circumstances but respects the town centre first approach as advocated by the SPPS. The dPS retail hierarchy is realistic and appropriate having considered relevant alternatives and is founded on a robust evidence base in accordance with soundness test CE2.

5.14

While soundness test CE1 requires cross boundary assessment this is not specific to individual aspects of the evidence base. Notwithstanding, the household survey contained within Technical Supplement 6 – Retail and Commercial Leisure Need and Capacity Study (DPS-127) surveyed zones outside the plan area to understand overlapping trade patterns. The adjacent Councils raised no issues in respect of SGS7. Inflow, outflow, and trade diversion within retail catchments are taken into account within any retail impact assessment. Where this includes centres outside of the plan area a retail impact assessment is the correct mechanism for their assessment on a case-by-case basis. No issues arise for soundness test CE1.

5.15

SGS7 Retail Hierarchy permits new retail development in town centres providing it maintains their primary retail function and wider role as a focus for business, leisure, cultural and other appropriate town centre uses. While not specifically repeating the SPPS paragraph 6.271 this affirms that mixed use developments are envisaged. Paragraph 7.2.11 of the dPS refers to the call for sites exercise to be undertaken at LPP to identify suitable mixed use development opportunity sites (DOS) to meet identified needs. These designations are generally focused on facilitating mixed-use regeneration schemes or strengthening and diversifying the overall offer of the town centres including promotion of housing as part of mixed-use development. Paragraph 6.277 of the SPPS is silent at what stage of the plan process the LDP should provide for a diverse offer and mix of uses, which reflect local circumstances and allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and form of retail and other town centre uses. This reference to the LDP comprises of both the PS and the LPP.

5.16

In the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 118 and 119 the Council consider development opportunity sites (DOS) are site specific in nature and they will be identified as part of the LPP process taking account of the evidence base including capacity within the updated retail and leisure capacity assessment. This may or may not include a housing element dependant on the site circumstances. A lack of provision for DOS in the dPS does not make the plan inconsistent with regional policy or soundness test C3.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

5.17

In the interim period paragraph 7.2.12 of the dPS refers to all applications for town centre uses being assessed in accordance with the LDP general policy criteria. The potential mix of uses including housing and focus for town centre uses or diversification are set out in the SGS7 Retail Hierarchy, and in the dPS paragraphs including 5.1.9, 5.5.1, 7.2.1, 7.2.4, 7.2.6, 7.2.8 and 7.2.9. Footnote 27 of Policy RET1 defines other town centre uses as including cultural & community, leisure, entertainment, and business uses as per the SPPS at page 101. It is not necessary that support for mixed use, residential or B1 uses within town centres is repeated throughout the retail policies. Alongside the housing and economic development policies there is sufficient provision to show account has been taken of the SPPS in line with soundness test C3. There is reasonable flexibility within the plan to satisfy soundness test CE4.

5.18

In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 74-75 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the retail strategy. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered PM-011 within the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA011 that the strategic approach set out for retail and town centres is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

6.0

Tourism Strategy

6.1

SGS8 Tourism Strategy is consistent with paragraph 6.263 of the SPPS. An additional element is requested to support the planning and implementation of appropriate infrastructure in relation to the plan areas tourist assets. However, adequate infrastructure can be delivered through the consideration of the transportation, infrastructure, and connectivity section of the dPS inclusive of policies TR1-TR7 and the further detailed proposals of the LPP stage of the process. There is no evidence to support to the wording of the dPS to facilitate tourist infrastructure.

6.2

Representors consider there to be a lack connection between the SGS8 Tourism Strategy, the tourism policies; and Table 5.7 titled ‘Categories for Tourism Potential in Mid and East Antrim’. The first of five elements in SGS8 is the protection and safeguarding of key tourism assets. This will also be facilitated through the consideration of Policy TOU1 Safeguarding of Tourism Assets and TOU3 All Tourism Development in the Countryside. These policies refer to vulnerable areas which are cross referenced to Table 5.7 include SCAs, nature conservation designations and ASSIs. The designations considered in the sensitive category include the developed coast; the AONB; and built heritage designations. The second element of SGS8 is the promotion of a sustainable approach to tourism development, including tourist accommodation and tourist amenities to meet future tourism demand. Except for Policy TOU2 this element of SGS8 will be delivered through the remaining policies within the tourism section of the dPS. We accept theses policies in section 7.3 logically flow from SGS8.

6.3

Policy TOU2 Tourism Development in Settlements and Tourism Opportunity Zones provides the delivery mechanism for the opportunity category which includes the urban remainder, rural settlements, former Magheramorne Quarry and Carnfunnock Country Park. Each are also defined as potential tourism growth areas in the third element of SGS8. PM-012 relates to paragraph 5.6.11 of the dPS and acknowledges the context of the parallel European designated sites within these areas. Notwithstanding paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS, and the need to consider all policies in the round, this change alerts the reader to the limitations within those opportunity areas. To provide a coherent strategy from which polices flow and provide clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring RA012 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE1 and CE3.

6.4

The Council acknowledged that Carnfunnock Country Park contains distinctive historic characteristics. As detailed in SA (DPS-106, Appendix 4) Carnfunnock is recognised for its many historic and cultural features and as a key tourism asset. Key site requirements can be introduced at LPP to ensure the setting of these assets is protected and a balance achieved. Policy TOU2 Tourism Development in Settlements and Tourism Opportunity Zones, at paragraph 7.3.11, refers to proposals within Carnfunnock Country Park being sensitive to its coastal location and historic and natural features and must also comply with Policy HE2 Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes. The dPS has satisfactorily taken account of the limitations within Carnfunnock Country Park and no issues of soundness arise.

6.5

Representations referred to omissions from the opportunity category of Table 5.7. Town centres do not require specific identification given they fall within the urban remainder which is already included or if covered by a built heritage designation within the sensitive category. The Causeway Coastal Route is referred to in the third bullet of SGS8 in association with the

LDP2021/MEA/PS

tourism opportunity areas. Paragraph 5.6.5 refers to it as the main attraction that will draw people to visit Mid and East Antrim, with sites, facilities and businesses across the plan area being aligned to the route, to offer stopping off points, places to stay, places to visit and east and quality experiences. The route was described by the Council at the IE as comprising of a string of pearls, with those pearls contained within the various categories ranging from the vulnerability of the Gobbins to the potential for restaurants and facilities within the towns and villages located along the route. The omission of the causeway coastal route from Table 5.7 does not raise concerns in respect of consistency issues in terms of soundness test CE1 given the nature of benefit from the coastal route cannot be specifically placed in one category. Other specific long distance walking routes do not require inclusion in the opportunity category given their identification is a matter for the LPP stage of the process, such as any community greenway routes that occur or have potential for development within the area. 6.6

The remaining two elements relate to environmental considerations and the contribution to sustainable economic development conservation and urban regeneration. Their delivery mechanisms are located outside of the suite of tourism policies including through Policy GP1.

6.7

In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 76-77 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered PM-012 within the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA012 that the strategy, and categories in Table 5.7 logically flow with clear mechanisms for implementation to meet the coherence and effectiveness soundness tests. The strategic approach set out for tourism is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

7.0

Transport Strategy

7.1

The RDS seeks to deliver a balanced approach to transport infrastructure (RG2). Larne is a gateway on the Eastern Seaboard Corridor, Ballymena’s location is on the northern corridor and Carrickfergus is located on one of the key link corridors within the Belfast Metropolitan Area.

7.2

The plan area is covered by the Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan (BMTP). As part of its ongoing preparation, DfI has published the draft Local Transport Study (LTS) for Mid and East Antrim within Technical Supplement 9 – Appendix A (DPS-131). The DfI Minister after publication of the dPS agreed to the publication of the LTS in final form. Therefore, the ‘draft’ LTS can be relied on as a published document. The LTS contains seven transport objectives at Section 6 (pages 33-42 of DPS-131). Table 7.1 Assessment of Transport Measures at Pages 5061 of the LTS show the nine measures to meet these seven objectives.

7.3

The first of the seven transport objectives at paragraph 5.7.2 of the dPS is enhancing accessibility and connectivity by road and public transport from the plan area town centres to Belfast. The BMTP evolution is referred to at Paragraphs 2.2.10 -2.2.12 of the LTS TS 9A (DPS131) and sections 2.8 and 2.9. The Council are represented on the BMTP project board in relation to rail capacity and connections into the wider BMTP. SCI Compliance Report (DPS405) refers to a meeting on the 18th of April 2019 and we are advised that others have taken place since the publication of the dPS. The BMTP 2035 preparation process runs in parallel with the LPP preparation process and will be subject to statutory engagement enabling changes to be made if necessary. That dPS has had regard to the provisions of the emergent BMTP is also evidenced by reference to it in TS9 Transportation (DPS-130) at paragraphs 2.7 and 2.15.

7.4

Nine transport measures are listed at paragraph 5.7.3 of the dPS. PM-013 amends the first sentence to logically flow from the draft LTS. RA013 is necessary in the interests of consistency to satisfy soundness test CE1.

7.5

The nine transport measures from the LTS include new orbital capacity around key town centres and walk and cycle infrastructure both within new developments and linking to existing or planned networks. The proposed road schemes for the plan area are set out in Technical Supplement 9- Transportation, Page 14, Paragraphs 3.5-3.6 and at Table 3.3 (DPS130). Each legacy road scheme is classed by DFI as ‘non-strategic’ as they are not included in their Strategic Road Improvement Programme and are not linked to any of the five KTC identified within the plan area at paragraph 4.8 of the RDS. The road schemes are therefore to be provided by the developer.

7.6

Paragraph 5.7.4 of the dPS relates to delivery of the nine transport measures and that they will be staged in nature, in that specific local proposals and schemes will flow from the strategic direction in the LTS. The detail and specific schemes will be contained within the Local Transport Plan to be prepared by the DfI alongside the LPP process when land use zonings are identified. This provides a realistic and appropriate approach for the delivery of the transport measures for the plan area.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

7.7

DfI’s purpose in respect of the LTS (DPS-131) is two pronged as set out at paragraph 1.1.6. The LTS at paragraph 1.1.9, Page 2 (DPS-131) sets out that the location of the transport measures are not described in detail and are illustrative only. Section 5.9, Page 32, of the LTS (DPS-131) states ‘In some cases these alignments may first appear out of line with current policy and some schemes will not progress in the form previously planned or not at all. However, these alignments will be retained until LPP when they will be reviewed in conjunction with individual zoning considerations and consequently dropped or retained as they could have potential alternative uses such as for active travel routes’. Examples provided at the IE hearing sessions of this potential non-alignment with current policy included schemes contrary to sustainability objectives such as impact on delivery of green schemes and non-compliance with climate change legislation.

7.8

Representors argue the LTS reference to ‘illustrative in nature’ is too narrow a focus and results in the legacy road schemes not being sufficiently considered by DFI. The 2035 BMTP is linked to DFI’s transport budget objectives including their duty under the Climate Change Act. The identification of new opportunities requires information in respect of feasibility, viability and constraints. As the DfI have yet to fully consider each of the legacy road schemes including specific routes in the context of sustainability objectives and climate change obligations it is not possible to include specific proposals at dPS stage. In a two-stage plan process this means that some decisions are naturally deferred to LPP stage to be worked out. The lack of analysis of scheme feasibility or alternatives, at this stage in the plan process, does not make the dPS unsound in the context of soundness test CE2.

7.9

The SPPS at paragraph 6.301 refers to how schemes or planned improvements to the transport network should be identified in LDPs. As the LDP encompasses both the dPS and LPP both the Council and representors referred to various aspects of the DPPN’s to support their consideration of whether the detail of transportation schemes or improvements is a necessary part of the dPS. Among the references provided DPPN7 The Plan Strategy at paragraph 1.2 refers to the PS setting the strategic direction early in the plan process to provide a level of certainty on which to base key development decisions in the area. DPPN 8 The Local Policies Plan states at paragraph 21.4 (page 30) ‘A council’s policy approach in relation to transportation should be set out in the PS’. Paragraph 21.5 adds that the LPP may identify lands which should be protected from development to safeguard the implementation of planned transport schemes or improvements to the transport network. Having considered the various references the ability for Councils to best judge which form future transport scheme identification takes over the two-stage plan process is endorsed within DPPN 8.

7.10

While representors consider the transportation objectives and policies fall short in providing spatial detail on how to take account of the growth, the dPS has had regard to regional guidance that envisages the identification of specific schemes as more information becomes available as part of the LPP preparation. The two-stage plan process does not close the door for the Council to take account of the measures stated in LTS, the policies and guidance therein must be taken into account when the Council prepares the LPP. The Transport Strategy and approach to legacy road schemes has had regard to the LTS and satisfies soundness test C4.

7.11

Representors consider that the transport objectives fall short in showing how growth will take account of the achievement of a critical mass for services and locating residential development within sustainable urban areas and closer to employment opportunities and other trip-

LDP2021/MEA/PS

generating developments. The Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) as described paragraph 2.1.9 of the dPS recognises the role of better integration between transport and land use as fundamental to achieving the transportation vision. 7.12

Figure 3.2 Spatial Context of Mid and East Antrim at page 39 of the dPS considers rail transport in respect of Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Greenisland and Larne. Table 6.1 (DPS-131) details the Alignment with Wider Strategy Aims/Objectives and LDP POP Objectives, at pages 41 and 42, link the LTS objectives with those of the RDS and those in the POP. We were also referred to technical supplements which demonstrate how transportation has been evaluated for the settlements in the plan area. This approach to considering connectivity and integration with sustainable land use has had regard to the guidance published by the Department relating to adjoining Councils and satisfies soundness test C4 as it has had regard to the RTS.

7.13

Representors considered Ballymena lacked analysis of road capacity including the competing demand for road space due to active travel measures reducing the space available on over stretched networks. Figures A-29-A-33 of the LTS (DPS-131) contains data on the average peak traffic speed which assists with understanding congestion levels as part of the assessment if new orbital schemes are necessary. As statutory consultees in the development management process, it is reasonable to expect that DFI understand the likely impacts from commitments and significance of congestion impacts of the committed growth. The information made available to Council is the result of traffic studies, modelling and granular level assessment undertaken by DFI and it is comprehensive. In accordance with soundness test CE2 the transport strategy has evolved from the evidence base within Technical Supplement 9Transport (DPS-130) and the LTS (TS9A DPS-131). The evidence base is robust and satisfies soundness test CE2.

7.14

A robust evidence base for the plan area does not require that the baseline traffic and population analysis data is the most current version. The dPS worked to a timetable and the information satisfies soundness test CE2.

7.15

In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 78-79 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the transport strategy. With the benefit of clarification from discussion at the public hearing we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered PM-013 in the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA013 that the strategic approach set for sustainable transportation is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

8.0

Open Space Strategy

8.1

SGS9 Open Space Strategy of the dPS contains seven elements addressing many aspects of open space provision for the plan area. The definition of open space as set out at paragraph 5.8.5 of the dPS refers to not just land but inland bodies of water such as rivers, canals, lakes, and reservoirs which may offer opportunities for sport and outdoor recreation and are often of significant amenity value. Footnote 7, page 84, of the dPS defines green and blue infrastructure and is consistent with the definition RDS.

8.2

The SA (DPS-106) for the dPS refers to blue infrastructure within its consideration of SGS9. Objective 11 the SA is to protect manage and use water resources effectively and is allocated a positive score. There is no requirement to specifically mention the marine environment within SGS9 as the coast is more appropriately dealt with under CS2 Special Countryside Areas (which designates the Larne and Gobbins Coast) and CS6 Developed Coast (Belfast Lough Shore). The dPS is read in the round. Other policies that can assist with the delivery and protection of blue infrastructure include FRD4 Sustainable drainage which supports the delivery of water structures for migrating birds such as swales, ponds, wetlands, and infiltration beds including SuDs. Policy GP1 criterion e) iii, also permits the issue of sustainable drainage to be considered in all development proposals of the plan area.

8.3

Outdoor coastal recreation within blue infrastructure is also an aspect of the UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) and Draft Marine Plan for NI. The marine environment is referred to at paragraph 5.8.1 of the dPS. Soundness test C4 does not require that specific reference is made to either document within the explanation of blue infrastructure in SGS9 or that it is drawn out across the open space policies. Soundness test C4 is met in this regard.

8.4

SGS9 facilitates both regional and local community greenways and six routes across the network. Regional greenways are designated through the DFI document ‘Exercise–ExploreEnjoy: A strategic plan for greenways (2016). This is recognised at Paragraph 5.8.8 of the dPS. Combined with other strategies such as the Council Cycling Routes Masterplan they will inform the designation of the detailed community greenway routes within the LPP.

8.5

Some of the six identified regional greenway routes defined within SGS9 extend beyond the Council area. Within Technical Supplement 4, Open Space, Sport, and Leisure (DPS-120) at paragraph 2.3.8, reference is made to important cross boundary aspects of these greenway routes. While Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council do not support the Mossley to Carrickfergus via Greenisland greenway currently, the plan period runs until 2030. Continual engagement as part of the LPP process could result in a boundary not being provided at LPP stage without offence to SGS9. The use of positive but non-committal language like ‘facilitating the development’ and ‘supporting the delivery’ provide reasonably flexibility to allow for nondelivery. The open space strategy SGS9 has had regard to the existing Council strategies relating to community greenways and the emerging proposals and emerging LDPS for the neighbouring councils to satisfy soundness tests C4 and CE1. SGS9 also takes sufficient account of blue infrastructure to satisfy soundness test C1.

8.6

Securing new open space for community needs is set out in the third policy aim, provision of new growing space and allotments is one element of its implementation. There is no need for

LDP2021/MEA/PS

the inclusion of an additional element to demonstrate the link between the community, nature, and wildlife. Nature benefits are generally encompassed within paragraph 5.8.1 of the dPS and the natural heritage policies at chapter 11 of the dPS provide sufficient provision to satisfy soundness test CE3. Public bodies’ duty to conserve biodiversity in accordance with Section 1 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 applies regardless of the wording of the open space policy aims or SGS9. 8.7

The SPPS does not single out educational needs for children and its non-inclusion within the strategy does not give rise to issues of soundness. Paragraph 5.8.16 of the dPS refers to the Council fostering relationships with local schools to allow their existing or planned pitch developments to become available for wider community use. PM-015 provides for greater flexibility in the facilitation of sport and outdoor recreation facilities including through educational facilities. Rather than requiring compliance with the Council’s playing pitch strategy it refers to where the Council or other public bodies identify such a need closely reflecting the approach set out at paragraph 5.8.16. RA014 is necessary for soundness test CE4 to provide reasonable flexibility to allow the open space strategy to deal with changing circumstances.

8.8

PM-014 relates to a typographical alteration. The Council are entitled to correct such matters. This change is not necessary for soundness.

8.9

In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 80-81 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the open space strategy. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the PM-014 and PM-015 within the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA014 that the strategic approach set out for open space is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

9.0

Countryside Strategy Sustainable Development in the Countryside

9.1

The Countryside Strategy of the dPS sets out the two-pronged policy aim to achieve a sustainable balance between development in the countryside and protecting, conserving, and where possible enhancing the natural and historical features of the countryside. PM-017 seeks to incorporate a reference to the rural community within the first policy aim (paragraph 5.9.6). To demonstrate that the dPS has taken account of the regional direction for the countryside at paragraph 6.65 of the SPPS in accordance with soundness test C3 RA015 is necessary.

9.2

CS1 relates to the first aim of the countryside strategy in respect of sustainable development in the countryside. This sets out a list of opportunities for housing development and a nonexhaustive list of other types of non-residential development that may be acceptable in principle in the countryside. It is not necessary in this context that inappropriate development is defined as it is a matter of judgement taking account of all considerations. The approach where CS1 sets out the types of acceptable development is appropriate and realistic. CS1 makes provisions for renewable energy proposals in accordance with RE1. We have not been persuaded of the need to rescreen this policy as part of the SA.

9.3

The second aim of the countryside strategy is to incorporate the protection, conservation and where possible enhancement of the rural landscape, seascape, natural environment, and historical and cultural heritage assets associated with the countryside. MEAM17 as provided by the Council at the IE hearing sessions relates to the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment (GVLA 3rd Edition). Paragraph 2.8 of this document references seascape. Para 2.6.5.1 of the UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) (2011) states that there is no legal definition for seascape in the UK and, 'seascape should be taken as meaning landscapes with views of the coast or seas, and coasts and the adjacent marine environment with cultural, historical, and archaeological links with each other’. It is not necessary that seascape is referred to throughout the provisions of strategic policies within the countryside strategy set out at CS2 to CS9. Technical Supplement 10 Appendix A (DPS-133) also details the Council’s consideration of the coastal areas at paragraphs 2.35-2.42. The evidence robustly considers seascape, and no further definitions or references are required to comply with soundness test CE2.

9.4

We have previously set out the context for the marine environment. CS2 and CS6 both state that ‘development proposals must have regard to the Marine Policy statement and the Draft Marine Plan for NI’ with details at paragraphs 5.9.13 and paragraph 5.9.40 of the dPS. PM-037 adds this reference to CS9 Development at Risk from Land Instability or Coastal erosion to clarify the relationship with marine policy documents. RA028 is required to demonstrate that regard has been had to marine policy in accordance with soundness test C4. The wording in CS2, CS6 and CS9 (as amended by PM-037) is consistent with this requirement.

9.5

Paragraph 5.9.2 contains a typographical error. Its correction is set out in PM-016. This is not a soundness matter. It is for DfI to direct the Council to address prior to adoption. We are satisfied that the provisions of CS1 relating to sustainable development in the countryside as drafted is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Special Countryside Areas

9.6

The LAP 2010 contains the undeveloped coast CPA. After the introduction of PPS21 in 2010 it was renamed as the Larne Coast Special Countryside Area (SCA). In the report on the POP Representations (DPS-507) the Council considered the issue of its retention in the dPS. In deciding to retain the extant designation and introduce new SCAs the procedural test of soundness P2 is satisfied.

9.7

The evidence base demonstrates that the economic impacts of the designation of CS2 Special Countryside Areas have been evaluated in the SA (DPS-106 Appendix 4). In the SA the Council identified the need for a strong policy protection as the only reasonable alternative taking account of legacy designations particularly in the LAP 2010. It is not necessary that every alternative must be considered to satisfy the requirements of the SA only those that are reasonable. The Council explained the intent of the policy is to provide landscape protection from adverse impacts of development. The approach would make the plan area a more attractive place to live, work and visit. This concern does not raise an issue of soundness.

9.8

CS2 Special Countryside Areas sets a presumption against development in the four designated areas other than in exceptional circumstances. The principle of these strategic spatial proposals and associated strategic policy has taken account of paragraph 6.75 of the SPPS.

9.9

The second paragraph of CS2 does not require qualification of ‘adverse impact’ on the landscape quality, or landscape character, or unique amenity value, or the environmental assets of the SCA. Representations in this respect also related to CS3, Area of Constraint on Hight Structures and CS5 Antrim Coast and Glen Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We were referred to the terms of ‘unacceptable’ or ‘significant’ adverse impact in the context of nature conservation or the landscape policies and as referred to in the SPPS, PPS2, EIA Regulations and the Habitats Directive. However, an SCA is the highest-level landscape designation in plan area. Therefore, any development proposal which triggers an adverse impact is required to be considered with weight given to the strength of the designation. Policy GP1 also reinforces a test of ‘significant adverse impact’ on landscape character, the rural character of the locality or environmental quality. As that relates to general landscape it would apply throughout plan areas open landscapes. We accept that a higher bar is required to be in place for designated sites than in non-designated sites. Failure of development proposals to satisfy Policy GP1 on landscape grounds would be consistent and would inevitability lead to a failure of the higher test in CS2. We are satisfied that CS2 as drafted present no tension or inconsistencies requiring a change to the test of adverse impact to comply with soundness tests CE1 or C3.

9.10

Paragraph 5.9.12 of the justification and amplification relates to SCAs as referred to at paragraph 2 of the headnote for CS2. It confirms how the impact on the SCA is to be considered and that the Council may require the submission of additional assessments. PM-018 seeks to add in the word ‘and character’ to the text of paragraph 5.9.12. This is consistent with the policy wording set out in CS2 which also refers to character. RA016 is required to satisfy soundness test CE1.

9.11

Notwithstanding, there is an interdependency with the natural functioning of the environmental assets, the purpose of an SCA as per regional policy is to protect exceptional

LDP2021/MEA/PS

landscapes encompassing both the quality of the landscape and its unique amenity value. The references within paragraph 5.9.12 of the dPS to heritage, ecology and biodiversity are more appropriately tested elsewhere in the dPS. Two of the SCAs overlap with AONB designations. Any development proposal in these locations would therefore also be considered within that context and its impact on heritage and wildlife within the strategic spatial proposal CS5. Lough Beg and Slemish Mountain SCAs contain international environmental designations. In that context development proposals in these areas would have to take account of impacts on ecology and biodiversity of these areas. Accordingly, such development proposals would be considered in the context of the suite of natural heritage policies provided for in the dPS. The need for additional assessments tied to heritage, biodiversity, and ecology within paragraph 5.9.12 of the dPS is superfluous. Their removal is encompassed within RA016.

9.12

CS2 sets out a presumption against development in SCAs other than in six exceptional circumstances. Exception a) requires that the proposed development is of such national or regional importance as to outweigh any potential adverse impact on the SCA. The term ‘regional importance’ differs to that defined in the Department’s jurisdiction in relation to developments of ‘regional significance’ as set out in Section 26 of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and The Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. Two of the designated SCAs cover the undeveloped coastline of the plan area. The term regional importance is used in the SPPS at paragraph 6.38 in respect of the undeveloped coast without further clarification. We do not consider its continued use within CS2 to be ambiguous.

9.13

Paragraph 5.9.13 of the justification and amplification for CS1 and CS2 provides further detail on how exception a) will be determined. Consistency test CE3 does not require replication of the need for agreement of adequate mitigation and/or compensatory measures within the CS2 headnote, we consider the policy is clear as to what is required. Setting specific definitions, elements, or thresholds for national or regional importance are not necessary for the policy to be coherent. Given the pace of technological advancements and research and development such considerations could become outdated and run contrary to the requirement for reasonable flexibility under soundness test CE4. It is more appropriate for applicants to make a case based on the circumstances of the proposal and the wide range of applicable factors. The development management Pre-Application Discussion (PAD) process, while limited in the context of investment decisions would ensure early engagement on matters of concern.

9.14

The Council considered that workings relating to minerals is an example of a type of development that would be considered in respect of its specific scale, and location. Representors requested that Ulster White Limestone is acknowledged given its valuable properties and limited occurrence and sought an additional exception to CS2 for its extraction. The third bullet point of Paragraph 6.155 of the SPPS advises that LDPs should identify areas which should be protected from minerals development because of their intrinsic landscape, amenity, scientific or heritage value (including natural, built, and archaeological heritage). Given the delicate balancing exercise within this exceptional landscape caution is required in any case for mining in an SCA. It would have to be considered as part of the development management process. Whether supplies of Ulster White Limestone are sufficient to meet demand could in theory be a specific factor considered alongside detail on its scale and location. An additional exception for Ulster White Limestone is therefore not necessary to satisfy soundness test CE2.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

9.15

The addition of ‘landscape character of the area’ to the end of the first sentence of paragraph 5.9.16 is superfluous. The paragraph relates to exception f) which requires that the proposed development is a council led or supported tourism project at an existing tourist/visitor site. The impact on landscape character would already have been assessed as part of CS2 in its second paragraph. These requirements do need to be repeated for the individual exceptions or reinforced in the justification and amplification text of the policy. Exception f) relies on a location at an existing tourist visitor site which already has a presence in the landscape. It is not facilitating a new form of development and can be assessed within the remainder of CS2 to protect the quality of the SCA. This approach does not raise any concerns in respect of soundness.

9.16

An additional exception is sought to relate to the delivery of environmental benefit (for example through the protection of wildlife or habitat). The enhancement of biodiversity is not a function of a SCA. In addition, exceptions should provide for a use of the land and given its significant scope it could undermine the exceptional landscapes which the SCA seeks to protect. The requirements to consider the impacts on biodiversity are provided within GP1 and other parts of the dPS. Such an addition is not required to make the policy sound.

9.17

Representors consider the LCA is based on a flawed methodology. The Council have used the guidance contained within an Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014) and Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland 2002. Various sources of evidence have informed the need for and extent of SCAs including the publications NI Regional Landscape Character Assessment (NILCA); NI Seascape Character Assessment; and Wind Energy Development in NI Landscapes. Soltys Brewster Consulting, Landscape Architects and Ecologists acted as critical friend to the Council throughout the process.

9.18

The selection process for landscape designations is set out from paragraph 4.11 of Technical Supplement 10 - Appendix C (DPS-135). It contains information on the cultural, historic, and perceptual qualities of the landscape to complement the existing descriptions of the landscape’s physical characteristics and identifies single dwellings and wind energy development as the main changes to landscape character since the publication of the original NILCA study which dates from the year 2000. The table assessing discreet areas of

landscape value within each of eighteen assessed LCAs. Technical Supplement 10 Appendix D Justification (DPS-136) illustrates the scored assessment against the seven selected criteria for further consideration. Following desktop and GIS based research, with field study fourteen areas achieved the requisite score of five. Technical Supplement 10 Appendix E (DPS-137) sets out the final position and statements of landscape value for the top ten of the areas. As some of the landscape areas of value were adjacent to one another they were merged for review as four candidate Sensitive Landscape Areas (cSLA) namely 01, 03, 06 and 08. Further assessment including photos, field overlays with large scale line layers and third party LVA information was combined to assist in the defensible nature of the SCA boundaries. MEABC members agreed the four SCA boundaries on 14th March 2019.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

9.19

Slemish and Surrounds is considered as cSLA 08 in Technical Supplement 10, Appendix E (DPS137). CS2 refers to this area as Slemish Mountain. Technical Supplement 10 provides a Statement of Landscape Value (SLV) of this area (page 58). The boundary for the SCA is detailed on district proposals map 2 (DPS-103). The Larne Coast SCA is also identified on this map. It based on the extant designation taken from the LAP 2010. This is identified in Technical Supplement 10, Appendix E (DPS-137) as cSLA 01 Larne Coast and Headlands as it has a coastal location incorporating the A2 coastal route, a key tourism asset.

9.20

The Gobbins Coast SCA is identified in DPS-137 as cSLA 06 Islandmagee and Gobbins Coast (Ferris Bay to Whitehead). It is identified on the district proposals map 03 (DPS-104). Lough Beg SCA is identified as cSLA 03 Lough Beg and Lower Bann River Corridor in DPS-137. It is identified on district proposals map 1 (DPS-102. Scheduled monuments are described in addition to the overlapping Ramsar and SPA designations. Having reviewed the rationale and boundaries for the four SCA designations we have found no deficiency in the evidence base to raise soundness issue CE2. We are satisfied that the evidence supports the definition of the SCA boundaries in the plan area.

9.21

Soundness test C4 requires that proposals have regard to the emerging LDPs of the neighbouring councils. Lough Beg SCA runs a short distance further to the north along the river than that in Mid Ulster Borough Council. Further north, as far as Portglenone and extending to the east, it is also designated under CS3 as an area of constraint on high structures. SCAs can cross Council boundaries; there is no statutory duty or requirement under C4 for their boundaries to dovetail. The designations are based on a value judgement of the landscape character and quality of the area by those undertaking the landscape appraisals within the countryside assessment process. Whilst there is a difference in policy approaches between Mid Ulster BC and MEABC, both recognise Lough Beg as an important landscape area that is vulnerable to pressure from development. There is a mutual understanding of the rationale behind the different policy approaches and engagement will continue within the Lough Neagh Forum. No conflict or issues arises in terms of the logical flow and soundness test C4.

9.22

Paragraph 5.9.36 of the dPS refers to the policy, CS5 Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as being read in conjunction with other relevant policies in the LDP, particularly those relating to strategic countryside designations. The principle of additional layers of landscape protection was considered as key issue 33 in the Preferred Options Paper (Page 228-229 DPS-501). The Preferred Options Paper Public Consultation Report (DPS-506) refers to this option receiving 92% support (Page 80). The Council at page 92 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) refers to the extant LAP 2010 having a two-tier approach to protecting parts of the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB at the Larne Coast. Proposals within the Slemish Mountain SCA and the Larne Coast SCA will also be assessed under CS5 Antrim Coast and Glens AONB however, CS2 applies a significantly higher test in these areas. This is based on the principle of development only being acceptable if it is one of six exceptions. Given that the policy context as expressed in the dPS dovetails together the principal of overlapping designations to landscapes of particular importance is realistic and appropriate and does give rise to concerns in respect of the tests of soundness.

9.23

Matters relating to the corelation between the settlement development limits (SDL) and the SCA, and any potential for expansion to accommodate development such as housing infill are matters for the detailed settlements boundary assessment which will be considered at the LPP

LDP2021/MEA/PS

stage of the plan process. The Council have indicated the SCA designations will be revisited at that time subject to the most up to date information. This is approach allows for reasonable flexibility to enable the dPS to deal with changing circumstances in accordance with CE4.

9.24

Representors consider that the additional protection within the SCAs renders the current targets within the DfE Energy Strategy undeliverable within the plan area. They further consider the dPS in constraining areas for wind energy has not had sufficient regard to the climate emergency. The DfE Energy Strategy (2021) contains regional targets that relate to all forms of renewable energy. Furthermore, the Climate Change (No.2) Bill introduced the target of 80% energy consumption from renewable sources by 2030. Further detail on this issue is considered in this report in the section on Renewable Energy (Policy RE1).

9.25

There is no exception related to renewable energy development other than exception d) of CS2 which relates to necessary improvements to existing infrastructure. In the case of energy proposals, the factors that could contribute to a determination of regional importance as provided for within criterion a) includes matters related to the scale and height of the structures as well as future requirement in respect of the Northern Ireland’s the regional energy policy. The Landscape Character Assessment (DPS 132) refers to Forces for Change. At page 26 of this document, it states: “It is possible that certain locations in the more elevated parts of the Borough will be further targeted for the location of wind turbines and potential solar. Such structures are likely to be highly contentious due to their prominent location and the associated visual impact.” While representors consider this language pre-emptive to any detailed consideration of a wind and solar energy developments, we accept that each proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis. The approach as drafted in the dPS follows the regional direction as advised by paragraph 6.223 which advocates a cautious approach for renewable energy development proposals will apply within designated landscapes which are of significant value. Paragraph 6.223 of the SPPS also identified that in such sensitive landscapes, it may be difficult to accommodate renewable energy proposals, including wind turbines, without detriment to the region’s cultural and natural heritage assets. The approach followed in the dPS takes full account of the SPPS. The Council have provided robust evidence in their assessment of the landscapes in the plan area to support the vulnerability of these landscapes to various forms of renewable developments.

9.26

The need for a balance and consideration of the issues for each proposal is necessary to avoid the elevation of any three pillars (economic, social, environmental) of sustainable development over the other. Rather than introduce a moratorium on such development CS2 requires that proposals for renewables should avoid unacceptable adverse impact on a range of planning considerations including unique amenity value and landscape character. Applicants will have to discharge a burden of justification within their evidence for renewable proposals within the four SCAs. This we accept is a realistic and appropriate approach for renewable energy development located in sensitive landscapes.

9.27

Of the four SCAs only the Larne Coast was previously designated. The Council stated this accounted for 2.8% of the plan areas countryside, of which the largest, Slemish Mountain SCA accounts for 1.35%. When combined with other landscape designations we were referred to 54% as unconstrained. MEAM20 was submitted by the Council at the hearing sessions. It comprised of two maps. The first shows wind turbine sites decision and built status with approval date after 2000 up until end 2020 for all designations. The second map focuses only

LDP2021/MEA/PS

on the SCA and ACHS designations. It is effectively a heat map showing there is little pressure from these types of development within the areas designated under CS2 as SCAs.

9.28

Representors referred us to what they considered to be a more likely scenario of just 0.3% of the district being available to deliver infrastructure that could contribute to achieving the energy targets. MEAM19 was submitted at the hearing sessions to support this position through maps that show how this figure was arrived at. The issue for consideration as part of the assessment of soundness for CS2 however relates only to how the designation and its strategic policy affects the capacity of the underlying landscape to absorb renewable development. The representors analysis was disputed by the Council at the hearing sessions. The Council considered there to be anomalies including areas shown as unsuitable for renewable energy development but noted in which 240 turbines have been approved in the plan area. They also noted that this related to areas shown with capacity within the AONB which one would normally expect there to be a restriction on the wind energy development. We were advised that the application of the representors approach to the whole of Northern Ireland would result in only 3.8% of land would being available for wind energy development and the plan area is not specifically constrained in comparison.

9.29

Having considered both sets of information, Map 1 submitted as part of MEAM19 shows that the figures take account of other constraints including environmental designations and siting requirements in the context of distance from occupied buildings. When all existing designations effecting commercial scale wind energy development are considered it amounts to only 1.6% of the plan area being available for commercial wind. Separation distances are the biggest constraint on development within the plan area followed by the designated nature conservation sites. Map 3 shows the impact of SCAs, ACHS and ASAIs added for combined existing and proposed impact. While the figure reduces to 0.3% only one area to the northwest of Slemish Mountain close to Douglas Burn is removed from the area determined to be available for commercial wind. We have undertaken a site visit to this area; taken account of the landscape assessment; and we also consider given the intrinsic character of this area it warrants to be designation as part of the SCA to protect and enhance its landscape. We have not been persuaded that this additional restriction on this small portion of the Slemish Mountain SCA will place a significant restriction on wind energy development.

9.30

It is inevitable that wind energy development will be more constrained within designated landscapes. However, we must be mindful that the targets for renewable energy development can be achieved through a diverse mix of renewable sources not just wind energy or solar energy developments. The targets are regional for the whole of Northern Ireland and are not solely reliant on this Council area to meet. We note at present the Council have considered this and note that plan area is making a meaningful contribution towards the target with the fifth largest level of installed capacity of renewable energy development of the all the NI Councils. By seeking to achieve a sustainable balance between the protection of these four exceptional landscapes in this plan area and accommodating renewable energy development projects that, contribute towards the strategic energy targets, the cumulative impact of SCAs designation have had regard to the renewable energy objectives in accordance with the Strategic Energy Framework and have taken account of the provisions of the SPPS. Soundness tests C3 and C4 are satisfied.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Areas of Constraint on High Structures

9.31

CS3 Area of Constraint on High Structures (ACHS) designates six areas covering approximately 15% of the plan area. The first paragraph of CS3 sets out its purpose as to protect the distinctive and vulnerable landscapes and the assets associated with the natural and historic environment. The strategic policy allows for structures up to 15m subject to three tests (i, ii, iii). Those above 15m and up to 25m will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances such as i) a need for a structure of this height; ii) no alternative site is available located outside of a designated area; and iii) appropriate mitigation measures are in place to minimise impact. Proposals over 25m must demonstrate the proposal is of such regional importance to outweigh detrimental impact; and appropriate mitigation measure are in place.

9.32

Representations were sought to widen these ACHS designations to encompass the entire Antrim Coast and Glens AONB. This was a subject of a counter representation on the basis these areas have already sufficient protection. The evidence base submitted by the Council shows variations in sensitivity of the landscape across the AONB and does not justify the expansion of this designation to the entire AONB. Given a lack of a robust evidence to support this request this issue of itself does not raise a matter of soundness.

9.33

Representors requested that high structures in this area should be limited to agricultural and telecommunications uses only. Such an approach would impact on the necessary infrastructure to secure the delivery of other utilities including renewable energy. Furthermore, this approach would fail to have regard to the objectives of the Strategic Energy Framework. An amendment to CS3 limiting high structures to agricultural and telecommunication is not justified to meet the test of soundness.

9.34

For any development proposal including public utilities and high structures an assessment of landscape character is a requirement of Policy GP1. Landscape character is also tested at Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development. Duplication of the test of landscape character via a further criterion for structures below 15m in height is not required to make to this policy sound as the dPS is read in the round.

9.35

Representors requested the inclusion of additional criteria to avoid/prevent adverse individual and cumulative impact from wind farms on species (and birds in particular). A counter representation was also received in respect of the inclusion of the designated sites (such as SPAs) and functionally linked land within the CS3 designation in order to protect designated features (e.g. Hen Harrier and curlew) from wind energy proposals. International and national nature conservation designations also cover part of these ACHS. The Public Consultation Report at DPS 142 (page 93) notes that ACHS is primarily a landscape designation but that can help support the aims and objectives of nature conservation designations. Therefore, whilst these areas support the aims and objectives of nature conservation designations and can contribute to conservation and biodiversity their purpose is primarily a landscape designation. The inclusion of additional criteria is not necessary as it would duplicate the provisions of Policy GP1 and Policy RE1 which requires that proposals will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on nature conservation or biodiversity. They are the appropriate policy provision for the assessment of the impact from wind energy alongside the associated suite of natural heritage policies.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

9.36

Representations were raised in respect of the appropriateness of the multi-layer designation in the dPS. The starting point is that some representations believe that CS3 does not follow from the provisions of regional policy; and it duplicates the purpose of the designations within CS2 Special Countryside Areas and CS5 Antrim Coast AONB. Paragraph 6.75 of the SPPS provides the regional basis for the protection of exceptional landscapes and states where appropriate these areas should be designated as Special Countryside Areas (SCAs) in LDPs. In addition to the reference within the SPPS to SCAs, this paragraph allows for local policies to be brought forward to maintain the landscape quality and character of Areas of High Scenic Value.

9.37

The Slemish Mountain ACHS surrounds the Slemish Mountain SCA. As set out previously the SCA is the highest tier landscape designation with only six circumstances when development can be accommodated. The SCA policy provisions are not repeated or contradicted by the criteria in CS3. No ambiguity arises for landscape protection between CS2 and CS3 at Slemish Mountain.

9.38

Slemish Mountain is also partly in the AONB, thereby creating a three-tier landscape approach in this area. Two other ACHS designations overlap with the AONB (Eastern Garron Plateau and Scarp Slopes and Knockdhu, Sallagh Braes, Scawt Hill to Glenarm Headland). The Carrickfergus Escarpment was previously identified as an AOHSV in draft BMAP. It does not therefore have the status of a designated landscape. Notwithstanding the dPS is not fettered by the scope of existing policy. Paragraph 5.23 of the SPPS provides for designations and policies specific to issues pertaining to the plan area providing they are of a strategic nature. It can tailor its provisions to reflect the circumstances of the plan area. Paragraph 7.12 refers to how these areas coincide with areas of the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB or Areas of Scenic Quality (NILCA 2000). The policy approach in such areas were considered as Key Issues 30, 32, 33 and 34 in the POP (DPS-501) and consultation responses from the public and consultees. Technical Supplement 10-Countryside Assessment Appendix H (DPS-132, pages 60-70) sets out evolution of the Countryside Strategic Policies however, we accept that there is no explicit reference to CS3 in that document.

9.39

Criterion e) of CS5 requires the protection of public views of key features, ridge lines and coastal headlands, the difference in wording between it and the part of CS3 that is relevant to structures up to 15m in height is of little consequence to the assessment of key views. The tests of prominence and integration and those for structures above 15m do not overlap with the CS5 tests. Therefore, we do not consider that the overlapping of CS3 and CS5 designations gives rise to concerns of coherence and effectiveness as required by the tests of soundness.

9.40

While representations were raised in respect of the rationale of overlap with other designations in the dPS including the Strategic Spatial Proposals CS6-CS8, district proposal map 01 (DPS-102) does not indicate there is any overlap. No issues of soundness arise.

9.41

Technical Supplement 10 - Appendix B - Development Pressure Analysis (DPS-134) considers the pressure for solar farms at Chapter 4. Paragraph 4.25 of this document recognises despite the relatively low development pressure for solar energy development, it is considered that solar farms can be an obtrusive form of development. Technical Supplement 10 -Appendix E Candidate Sensitive Report (DPS-137) splits this assessment of solar pressure across the cSLAs as set out between pages 20 and 67. Proposals within the ACHS that are within the AONB are

LDP2021/MEA/PS

covered by the CS5 criterion e) test of protection of public views of key features, ridge lines and coastal headlands. On page 42 Islandmagee East and Gobbins Coast cSLA 06 (also covers the SCA designation) has low pressure for solar development, with the other areas (cSLA 03 Lough Beg and the Lower Bann River corridor, cSLA 08 Slemish and surrounds and cSLA 09 Carrickfergus Escarpment) not under pressure for solar development. The evidence provided in the countryside assessment does not justify the cautious approach specifically for solar development in this area. We consider that solar energy proposals are more appropriately assessed within Policy RE1 Renewable Energy criterion a) which contains the provisions to prevent an unacceptable adverse impact on landscape character. Other emerging technologies including energy storage that are below could be assessed in the same manner. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the dPS makes appropriate provision through the application of other policies to protect ACHS from those structures listed at paragraph 5.9.17 of the dPS that are below 15m. We are satisfied the multi-layer of polices in the plan are coherent when read together.

9.42

Representations questioned the robustness of the evidence base to support the designation boundaries applicable to CS3. As set out previously under the consideration of CS2, we have found the methodology for assessing landscape character as set out within the countryside assessment (DPS-132-DPS-137) to be robust in the context of soundness test CE2. Appendix E Candidate Sensitive Report (DPS-137) contains the justification for each of the CS3 designations between pages 20 and 67 under CSLAs 03 – 09. Detail is provided on pressure for wind energy development, solar energy, and single dwellings. The boundaries selected have been viewed from a selection of vantage points along key roads with photos included. They are compatible with their definition as distinctive and vulnerable landscapes. We have reviewed the evidence base and consider it supports the selected boundaries applicable to CS3.

9.43

Representors consider the height thresholds are not based on a robust evidence base and are contrary to regional policy 6.230 of the SPPS. Policy GP1 is applicable to public services, utilities and structures located in the countryside. However, paragraph 5.9.17 of the justification and amplification text for CS3 makes clear reference to public utilities and high structures. Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure (as per RA105) requires that proposals minimise visual intrusion and avoid sensitive locations. The test within RE1 criterion a) requires that renewable energy development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on visual amenity or landscape character and would also apply to smaller turbines. Accordingly, all turbines regardless of scale and height would be assessed. This policy also takes account of a cautious approach within areas valued for their distinctive landscapes. This is realistic and appropriate in its approach.

9.44

Representators questioned the evidence base relating to the threshold of 15m High Structures. Paragraph 5.9.23 of the dPS provides the justification and amplification text applicable for the structures up to 15m in height. It states the 15 m threshold is considered appropriate because this relates well to the size of existing buildings in the landscape, including typical farm buildings. It also considers that a single turbine of this height is most likely to be used to contribute to the energy needs of a residential house, farm, or other rural small business. This height is described as relatively easy to accommodate in the landscape if sited to cluster with existing buildings. Both commercial and domestic turbine heights are

LDP2021/MEA/PS

referred to in the evidence base. Taking account of the evidence base we are not persuaded a threshold of up to 15 metres needs to be specified in the head note of CS3. Such structures up to this height can be considered in the context of normal planning and environmental considerations.

9.45

In respect of the 15m to 25m high threshold paragraph 5.9.25 and 5.9.26 of the justification and amplification text also refer to the selected 15m and 25m heights where there is a need for the structure and where it is demonstrated are no suitable sites outside of the designated area. Such cases will be assessed on their own merits. In response to criticism that tenuous height thresholds for all structures have been derived from the height of turbine masts, the Council referred to analysis of visibility from key receptors such as settlements, key tourist routes and key recreation sites and a consideration of the impact of any existing high structures permitted within sensitive areas such as AONBs and areas of scenic quality (ASQ). Above 15m the CSLA says that harm will be caused, and a graduated approach is adopted which recognises the further you move above 15m the greater the likely harm.

9.46

Electricity infrastructure including lattices towers for distribution, OHLs, poles and smaller pylons sit within this intermediate category (above 15m and below 25m). NIE considered there to be an no specific height analysis of this type of infrastructure in the evidence base. We were advised at the hearing sessions of the IE that the Council based their assessment on wooden poles for overhead lines at up to 23m high according to information derived from SONI and relied on photographs which show pylons visible in the landscape. Pylons and overhead lines are identified as in the section ‘Force for Change’ within Technical Supplement 10-Appendix A-LCA (DPS-133, page 25) which states ‘new overhead power lines and pylons can cause substantial visual disruption leading to loss of tranquillity and erosion of rural character’.

9.47

We concur with the Council’s view that the assessment for the 15m-25m height band. It is not onerous for electricity undertakers who beyond their permitted development rights know that they need to present a justified case as part of any planning application. They also know their duty to accommodate such provisions in all types of landscapes with a focus to strengthening the grid and linkages between transmission and distribution networks as prescribed in the context of RG5 (Deliver a Sustainable and Secure Energy Supply) of the RDS.

9.48

The Council stated that the landscape evidence considers 25m as the threshold for a likely degree of harm and therefore proposals would need to show regional importance. Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure follows from paragraph 6.240 of the SPPS which indicated councils should bring forward policies and proposals to set out the detailed criteria for considerations of new telecommunications development. The SA (DPS-106 Appendix 4) identifies that no reasonable alternatives were considered in respect of the 25m threshold. The dPS makes provision for structure above 25m where regional importance can be demonstrated. We accept dPS approach is reasonable and concerns relating to the consideration of reasonable alternatives to this approach do not undermine the evidence base leading of the SA. We are advised by NIE that pylon towers are typically between 30m and 50m. Location specific transmission infrastructure is located in the plan area for connections to Ballylumford and Kilroot power stations. Having considered the evidence base there are shortcomings in the analysis of the heights for the variety of structures that CS3 seeks to avoid. Further evidence to explain why the 15m and 25m heights were selected would have been helpful to understand the policy. Nonetheless we don’t find this lack of assessment to be

LDP2021/MEA/PS

critical to the policy as there was general agreement on the type of structures that would fall within the thresholds. The applicable policy tests for those structures do not change.

9.49

The policy tests for the 15m-25m and 25m plus height thresholds within CS3 represent a higher test than other provisions for the countryside, there is no ambiguity with other provisions. We accept the approach set out in the dPS in respect of structures above 15 metres is realistic and appropriate for the identified areas of constraint and satisfies the tests of soundness.

9.50

Representations raised concern that CS3 would limit the security of energy supply. The ACHS accounts for 15% of the plan area. There is already existing energy infrastructure located within these important landscape areas, which forms part of their landscape character. RG5 of the RDS focuses on strengthening the grid and linkages between transmission and distribution networks, which will likely include refurbishment and upgrade of existing overhead lines, pylons, poles, and other energy infrastructure. In accordance with Schedule 9 of the Electricity (NI) Order 1992 and the Holford Rules, NIE must consider visual amenity and environmental considerations alongside technical matters such as pole heights at a specific safety clearance from the ground in respect of high voltages, from railways, watercourses etc. They also must bring forward the least cost technical solution. Representors advised that diversions and higher cost solutions for reinforcement of the aging network could impact on supply costs and customer bills.

9.51

The Council acknowledged the value and cost sensitivity for public utility and high structure infrastructure. They referred to electricity infrastructure being delivered under the permitted development rights for statutory or other undertakers at Part 14 of the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. Notwithstanding, sites of archaeological interest and some forms of development within the AONB are excluded, Class C Electricity Undertakings of this order sets out permitted development rights for such infrastructure regardless of its location in such areas.

9.52

We consider the evidence base evidence base is sufficient to show the need for balance between protection of vulnerable landscapes from infrastructure that is of such a scale that they become obtrusive in the landscape, as such landscapes have limited capacity to absorb visually intrusive forms of development. Therefore, it is considered reasonable to provide these quality landscapes with ‘additional’ policy protection. There are sufficient ways that electricity providers can show sensitivity to that environment. Of the designated ACHS three are already in the AONB and the Carrickfergus Escarpment has also had a degree of additional protection. We consider there is limited evidence to show an upturn in demand in these or risk to security of supply from the additional designations. Given the limited scale of electricity infrastructure pressure we do not consider that CS3 results in a risk to security of supply. Account has been taken of the RDS. The CS3 policy, as drafted, has taken account of paragraph 6.250 of the SPPS. The policy has also had regard to the Strategic Energy Framework. Soundness tests C3 and C4 are met in this respect.

9.53

Representations in respect of CS3 raised concern that it restricts the ability to meet the renewable energy targets. Commercial wind turbines are most likely to fall within the highest height threshold and must therefore meet the final test of regional importance to outweigh detrimental impacts. The term ‘detrimental impact’ is a commonly used term within the SPPS including at paragraphs 6.38 and 6.205 and there is no indication that any issues have arisen

LDP2021/MEA/PS

with its interpretation lead us to conclude that it cannot be evaluated as part of the development management process. The language in paragraph 6.224 of the SPPS does not need to be replicated. Its use does not go to soundness.

9.54

For a wind farm, with turbines over 25 metres in height, all the criteria of CS3 apply in these identified locations. Paragraph 6.230 of the SPPS relates to wind farms specifically. It outlines that the visual impact of wind farms will not necessarily have negative effects but caveats that the ability of the landscape to absorb development depends on several factors including the inherent characteristics of the landscape such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys, and vegetation. While representors consider CS3 to be overly restrictive on wind energy, the Council placed emphasis on the wording ‘not necessarily’. Proposals are dependent on the nature and scale of the proposal, its local context, and the relevant provisions of the dPS. The Council confirmed it is not the intention of CS3 to prohibit wind energy, the visibility of a wind farm does not equate to failure of CS3, each case would be considered on its own merits subject to consistency with Policy RE1, and any of the additional dPS policies applicable to the site and proposal. We consider this approach to be realistic and appropriate in the context of the sensitive landscapes as identified by SC3.

9.55

Technical Supplement 12 - Public Utilities (DPS-140 paragraph 3.2.12) identifies 269 single turbine approvals and 10 wind farm approvals since 2002. Representors consider that the small turbines under 15m high could be more harmful to the landscape character than carefully selected and designed wind farm schemes. We were referred to GIS information which indicates 24 turbines were approved on 23 sites within the ACHSs but only 12 wind turbines have been built in these areas at present. Of 48 sites where applications were made for wind energy 52% were refused or withdrawn. This would indicate the policy context for these landscapes have been previously considered sensitive to this type of infrastructure and associated works.

9.56

The detail within MEAM19 which shows the amount of land representors consider to be available for commercial wind has been previously set out in the context of CS2. While only one area identified as available was included within a proposed SCA, both the Eastern Garron Plateau and Scarp Slopes ACHS and the Knockdhu, Sallagh Breas, Swart Gill to Glenarm Head ACHS contain small areas not considered by representors to be restricted for wind energy currently. When cross checked against the Council maps provided within MEAM20 than relate to wind turbine/wind farm planning history. Neither of the two areas now affected by the ACHS designations have any significant history of being under pressure for turbines or wind farms. The evidence base does not support the ACHS designations having a significant impact on future delivery. The fact that both are already located within the AONB has also been taken into account in this consideration.

9.57

The plan area can also meaningfully contribute to the regional objectives by other forms of renewables as previously set out under the consideration of CS2. We consider that the Council has had regard to the impact CS3 could have on the delivery of the targets within the Strategic Energy Framework. Soundness test C4 is satisfied.

9.58

Having considered the representation made to Policy CS3 we consider the rationale for the policy is justified in the context of the identified locations stated in the headnote. We consider there is a robust evidence base to demonstrate policy considerations for high structures in this

LDP2021/MEA/PS

location above 15 and up to 25m and structures above 25 m in height. However, reference to structures under 15m is incompatible with the title of CS3 which refers to high structures. We are not persuaded that the application of this policy to structures up to 15 metres is realistic or appropriate in this context. There is sufficient policy provision in other elements of the dPS such as GP1, TEI1, RE1 and the other Strategic Spatial Proposal within CS1 and CS5 to consider such structures. Subject to the removal of the restrictions relating to structures up to 15m in height we consider this policy to be realistic and appropriate. RA017 is therefore to remove the wording and criteria relating to structures up 15 m in height from the headnote of policy CS3. It also encompasses some elements of PM-020, PM-022, PM-024, PM-025, PM-027, PM028 and PM-030.

9.59

PM-019 seek to amend the title of CS3 to Areas of Constraint on High Structures and Obtrusive Development. PM-020 comprises of two parts. It seeks to the amend the title reference in the head note of CS3 and removes the reference to ‘environmental’ from the first sentence of CS3. As this is a designation based on landscape it does not reflect the intention of the policy and should be removed for a coherent strategy to satisfy soundness test CE1.

9.60

PM-021 provides additional wording to paragraph 5.9.20 to explain the context of the change in policy title to cover obtrusive development. Obtrusive development is described as development that is visually prominent in the landscape or which adversely impacts landscape character, key views or the visual quality of distinctive landscape features and their settings. Distinctive landscape features can include landforms, natural heritage assets and historic environment assets. PM-022 removes from the CS3 headnote the reference to wind turbines, electricity infrastructure or telecommunications masts equipment less than 15m in height. PM-023 introduces additional wording to paragraph 5.9.22 to repeat the wording within the policy headnote as it relates to obtrusive development.

9.61

The principle of the term ‘obtrusive development’ requires consideration as to whether it predetermines the visual assessment of the proposal. It is intended to encapsulate those structures which are less than 15m, the reason is twofold. The first is because they could not be considered as a high structure and would result in a policy title that does not relate to the intent of that policy and is ambiguous. The second is because they consider there is a need for a more restrictive policy. However, while the application of a policy for high structure is a factual application based on the proposed structure height, the word obtrusive is subjective. It uses could be considered to predicate harm rendering if difficult to assess such proposals without bias. The Council outlined that it could be possible for proposals under 15m high to pass through the tests a) to c), as an example a proposal could be obtrusive by being visually prominent but mitigation to reduce impact on key views. That situation would already be provided for through other policies. On this basis the recommended approach of removing the criteria for proposals less than 15m is preferred to the series of amendments to bring more proposals within the scope of the policy. RA018 amends the justification and amplification within paragraph 5.9.20 where necessary. RA019 amends the justification at paragraph 5.9.22 to refer only to the protection of key views.

9.62

PM-024 clarifies that the height thresholds are above original ground level and enables clear implementation of the policy as per soundness test CE3. The inclusion of policy test ‘do not interrupt key views from public vantage points’ is also part of the RA017 and is required to ensure the policy aim is reflected as part of a coherent strategy in the context of soundness

LDP2021/MEA/PS

test CE1. PM-025 switches numbering of criteria and is accommodated in RA017 for ease of reference.

9.63

PM-026 amends the wording of paragraph 5.9.21 to better inform the intention of the policy, highlighting that there may be a presumption against other types of development, as well as energy infrastructure. This was designed to reflect the additional forms of development but as CS3 only relates to structures over 15m it requires amendment if internal consistency is to be maintained in accordance with soundness test CE1. It is RA020.

9.64

The remaining PMs relate to structures above 25m in height. PM-027 amends criterion i) of CS3 to refer to proposal of such regional importance instead of regional significance. PM-028 amends the wording of the final section to also relate to above ground level so that it is comparable for all height categories and to ensure such structures are subject to the same policy tests as structures over 15m in height. It also includes the removal of the reference to mitigation measures (the final sentence on page 96) as that criterion is already set out within criterion f) of CS3. PM-029 makes a corresponding change to the justification and amplification text at paragraph 5.9.26. In line with soundness test CE1 this is necessary for internal consistency with CS2 to assist with the distinction with Section 26 of Planning Act (as it is not the intention that it relates to legislation). Representations relating the use of a test of ‘adversely impact’ on the penultimate paragraph of CS3 on page 97 are superseded by PM030 which sought the removal of this paragraph as it isolates renewable energy development irrespective of its height. This would be incompatible with the policy title. These changes are incorporated in RA017 and included in RA021for coherence in light of soundness test CE1.

9.65

After paragraph 5.9.20 of the justification and amplification PM-031 requires that proposals are to be accompanied by an objective impact assessment noting that Landscape and Visual Assessments (LVIA) are one example of such an assessment. This is to assist in clear implementation of the policy to satisfy soundness test CE3. The reference to obtrusive types of development and shorthand title (ACHSOD) should be omitted for internal consistency. This is RA022.

9.66

PM-032 amends the wording of paragraph 5.9.25 to reflect proposed amendments to TOC1 to reflect telecommunications ‘not spots’ or is for essential electricity transmission or supply. This is RA023 and is required for consistency with the subsequent reference to such cases being assessed on their merits in accordance with soundness test CE1.

9.67

PM-033 amends paragraph 5.9.26 to reflect the proposed changes to Policy TOC1 title to TEI1 and is needed for internal consistency. This is RA024. PM-034 appears to duplicate changes to the justification text referred to above and is not required for soundness.

9.68

A fundamental change is a matter which goes to the heart of the plan. Combined the recommended amendments to this single policy which applies within 6 designated areas does not go to the heart of the plan. Each modification was consulted on as part of the consultation process and set out within the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Notwithstanding the accumulation of PMs for this policy we are satisfied that they can be dealt with by means of our outlined RAs and do not fall foul of DPPN 10 in respect of submission for the IE.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Rural Landscape Wedges

9.69

Rural landscape wedges prevent coalescence between settlements, in this case between Greenisland and Jordanstown and between Carrickfergus and Greenisland. They are identified in the district proposals map (DPS-103). Technical Supplement 10-Appendix E Candidate Sensitive Landscape Report (DPS-136) contains their statement of landscape value at SLA11. CS4 is sound as written. Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

9.70

For the dPS to be sound it does not need to replicate the provisions of the legislation that was used to designate the Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in plan area. As previously set out above in respect of consideration relating to CS2 the term ‘adverse impact’ does not require a prefix of unacceptable or significant as to do so would render the test on par with areas outside of the designated landscape whereas AONBs are a national landscape designation. As per paragraph 6.174 of the SPPS the precautionary principle should apply when considering the impacts of a proposed development on national significant landscapes.

9.71

Paragraph 5.9.3 of the dPS cross refers to MIN4 Areas of Constraint on Mineral Development. This will ensure sufficient protection for those areas of the AONB that are more vulnerable to minerals development. The approach of multi-layer designations for minerals proposals is a sustainable approach comparable to that taken for other forms of development in the AONB. The typographical error identified as MEAM18 as provided by the Council at the hearing session seeks to correct the reference for Special Countryside Areas from CS1 to CS2 does not go to soundness and is a matter for Council. Those areas within the AONB but outside the SCA or ACHSOD may have more capacity to absorb new development, but it does not result in a weakening of the AONBs protection or value. The principal of multiple tiers of landscape protection does not raise issues for soundness.

9.72

Representors consider that combined with a second reference to ‘its setting’ in the second sentence this effectively expands the boundary of the AONB. PPS 2 Policy BH6 AONB refers to proposals of an appropriate design, size, and scale for the locality whereas the latest expression of policy for development within the AONB is set out within paragraphs 6.1866.188 of the SPPS. Setting is not referred to in this context and is only contained within the policy context for renewable energy development within AONBs at paragraph 6.223. The dPS policies do not have to replicate regional policy but the reason for any departure must be set out within the evidence base to accord with soundness test CE2. We were advised that the reference to setting with CS5 is to control those proposals with a visual relationship with the AONB and is necessary to give effect to the protected landscape designation. However, as worded CS5 could be read as applying all six tests (encompassing aspects including the proposed use, design, material and finish of buildings, boundary details and public views) within the setting of the AONB. This does not comply with soundness test C3 as it extends beyond the regional context for development proposals within the setting of the AONB for renewable energy development. To accord with soundness test C3 RA025 is the removal of the reference to ‘its setting’ from paragraph one and two of CS5.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

9.73

CS5 Criterion f) also relates to proposals outside of the AONB but it is a lower test of ‘have regard’ which follows paragraph 6.187 of the SPPS. PM-035 seeks to replace ‘outside but closely interlinked with the AONB’ with ‘outside of but have a visual link with the AONB’. This provides a clear mechanism for the implementation of the policy to satisfy soundness test CE3 by clarifying that it is an extension of the development’s visual relationship with the designated area rather than physical linkage such as a river corridor. This is RA026.

9.74

CS5 Criterion a) requires that the nature and intensity of the proposed use is compatible with the landscape and distinctive character of the AONB. Soundness test CE3 does not necessitate the replacement of the word ‘intensity’ with ‘scale and location’. While siting and scale is identified within criterion a) of Policy NH6 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in PPS 2 Natural Heritage, the combined criteria of CS5 provide sufficient provision to test these aspects, in particular scale is covered within criterion a) and criterion b) refers to siting.

9.75

CS5 does not require a specific requirement to take account of any social or economic benefits that may arise because of a proposal in the countryside. Paragraph 5.9.6 of the dPS sets out that the aim to facilitate development which contributes to a sustainable rural economy and community (as amended by RA015). This is delivered through the provisions within CS1. The second sentence of CS5 also cross refers to the general policy and other provisions of the LDP. CS5 has taken account of the SPPS and soundness test C3.

9.76

Paragraph 6.188 of the SPPS refers to management plans and local design guides as material in assessing proposals, including cumulative impacts in such areas. Paragraph 5.9.37 sets out further relevant documents providing detail on the important and distinctive features of the AONB. Soundness test C4 does not require their duplication within paragraph 5.9.35 to show that regard has been had to other guidance and strategies that are applicable in the AONB.

9.77

The dPS advocates a “cautious approach” for renewable energy proposals within landscapes of significant value in accordance with paragraph 6.223 of the SPPS which specifically refers to the AONB. The AONB accounts for 20% of the plan area. At present it is necessary for proposals within the AONB to take account of paragraphs 6.187, 6.188, 6.198 and 6.222 of the SPPS and Policy NH6 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty of PPS 2. A balance must be struck between supporting renewable energy development and protecting landscapes of value within the AONB. The balance between CS5 and other policies including Policy RE1 contains sufficient flexibility to enable appropriately scaled renewable development within the AONB and has regard to the Strategic Energy Framework satisfying soundness test C4. Developed Coast Belfast Lough Shore

9.78

While the developed coast is identified on district proposals map 3 (DPS-103) as extending along Belfast Lough from Greenisland to Whitehead, the detail of these settlement limits will be defined at the LPP stage of the plan process. The rationale for not requiring seascape to be specifically defined has been previously set out at paragraph 9.3 of this report. The addition of an additional bullet point in the aims section of CS6 to include delivery of educational benefit is too open and is not based on a requirement of regional policy at paragraphs 6.39 or 6.47 of the SPPS. CS6 satisfies soundness test C3.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Local Landscape Policy Areas

9.79

CS7 Local Landscape Policy Areas (LLPAs) does not designate LLPAs. Paragraph 5.9.42 of the dPS acknowledges that LLPAs are only designated in the Carrickfergus Area through the draft BMAP and the LPP will review them and consider LLPA designations elsewhere in the Borough. Notwithstanding, the location of CS7 within the countryside strategy section of the dPS, it should set out the appropriate policy tests for any future LLPA designations inside urban areas as well as in the countryside. On this basis, the reference to character within the headnote should not be expanded to specifically refer to landscape character. This would remove the ability to consider townscape, archaeology or other features that can be found in both rural and urban areas which would contribute to local character. The reference to character in CS7 has taken account of regional policy at paragraph 6.30 of the SPPS and accords with soundness test C3. Any future LLPAs designated during the LPP stage of the plan process will take account of existing quarries or approved extensions to these quarries. CS7 is sound as worded. Protection of Main River Corridors

9.80

The dPS requires proposals for development to meet five criteria when sited adjacent to main river corridors. Criterion a) specifies a biodiversity strip of at least 10m from the edge of these Main River Corridors. There is no provision in the SPPS or PPS 2 for this to apply to all river corridors to provide for more comprehensive protection of biodiversity. Technical Supplement 10 - Countryside Assessment-Appendix A Landscape Character Assessment (DPS-133) contains an analysis of the ‘Main’ River Corridors from page 168. It includes opportunities for access and recreation along the ‘main’ river corridors to consider if they warrant additional policy protection. This analysis has been informed by the Environmental Assets Appraisal, and the Candidate Sensitive Landscape Scoring Matrix Justification (DPS-132 and DPS-135). Relevant alternatives were not considered in respect of this element of policy for smaller rivers. In the absence of regional policy direction and a robust evidence base extension of the policy provisions to all rivers would not meet soundness test CE2. Those provisions could be exercised if necessary to other river corridors to safeguard interests of acknowledged importance, including the public and biodiversity interests at development management stage based on their merits. We are satisfied there is a robust evidence base to support CS8.

9.81

The reference in paragraph 5.9.50 of the dPS to access for pedestrians and cyclists can be considered as clarificatory text for criterion b) relating to public access and d) related to riverside walks. Soundness test CE3 does not require the amendment of either criteria to restrict access in the interests of biodiversity. Proposals must meet all criteria a-e including c) which provides for a test of no significant adverse impact on biodiversity. This is reinforced through the requirement to meet the general policy and accord with other provisions of the LDP including the suite of natural heritage policies.

9.82

PM-036 seeks to replace the word ecology with biodiversity at the end of paragraph 5.9.50. This will provide a logical flow alongside the criteria a) and c) of the headnote and paragraphs 5.9.48 and 5.9.51. This is RA027 considering soundness test CE1. Subject to RA027 CS8 is sound as worded.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Land Instability and Coastal Erosion

9.83

CS9 Development at Risk from Land Instability or Coastal Erosion sets out a general presumption against development in known areas of coastal erosion and/or in areas of ‘known’ risk of land instability. While the SPPS paragraphs 6.42 and 6.46 provide the regional context for erosion and land instability at the coast, for inland areas with instability risk Policy PSU10 Development at Risk (PSRNI on page 109) is applicable. CS9 has taken account of regional policy and soundness test C3 is satisfied.

9.84

Paragraphs 5.10.3 and 5.10.8 of the dPS refer to the provision of information from DFE Geological Survey for Northern Ireland (GSNI). Technical Supplement 8-Minerals (DPS-129) contains the geohazards section at paragraphs 3.42-3.44. Any unresolved threat to health and safety due to instability will preclude development, as will insufficient information about the level of risk. This approach takes account of the precautionary approach within regional policy that, where there are significant risks of damage to the environment, its protection will generally be paramount, unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest as recognised at paragraph 3.9 of the SPPS. It has also had regard to the community plan ‘Putting People First’ (DPS-603) which refers to managing development to avoid building in areas prone to flooding, coastal erosion, and land instability (page 19).

9.85

PM-037 adds a final sentence to the headnote of CS9 Development at Risk from Land Instability or Coastal Erosion to highlight that all development proposals are required to have regard to the marine policy statement and draft Marine Plan for NI. This is RA028 is necessary to demonstrate regard to these plans as required by soundness test C4.

9.86

In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 82-104 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the Countryside Strategy. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered counter representations and the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and any representations received have been considered. Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA015-RA028 that the strategic approach for the countryside, landscape, river corridors, the coast and land instability is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

10.0 The General Policy for all Development 10.1

The dPS requires that all development proposals, except for minor proposals will be assessed against Policy GP1 The General Policy for all Development. The policy is clearly set out as the first policy of Part 2 of the dPS. For reasons already noted in this report It is not necessary for the dPS to provide reference in each policy to the requirements of Policy GP1 for the dPS to be sound.

10.2

Representors consider there is inconsistency with GP1 and the SPPS at paragraph 3.8. However, paragraph 3.9 of the SPPS states ‘In practice this means that development that accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up to date development plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.’ As the approach takes account of the central challenge in furthering sustainable development this aspect of Policy GP1 satisfies soundness test C3.

10.3

In respect of criterion a) relating to Design Quality and Respecting Local Character and Distinctiveness representators sought an amendment to point i. to refer to ‘the inherent landscape character of the locality' on the basis that the term ‘landscape character’ should be included as it is consistent with the NI Landscape Character Assessment (NILCA). GP1 criterion f) already makes provision for consideration of landscape character for development in the countryside and within the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at page 107 the Council relied on the need for a wider scope to comprise townscape and the urban context. The term character is used universally and is not ambiguous when considered in context of the justification and amplification at paragraph 6.1.3 of the dPS. We are therefore satisfied the dPS has had regard to the NILCA. The test of soundness test C4 is met to this extent.

10.4

Criteria b) of GP1 relates to the Safeguarding Residential Amenity. Point iii. requires new residential development to be sited to maintain sufficient separation distance from existing or approved infrastructure development likely to prejudice residential amenity or safety. The rationale for safeguarding residential amenity is set out at Section 6.1.4 of justification and amplification text of the dPS. This is stated as: “about ensuring that a new development does not give rise, either directly or indirectly, to an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of those living in a neighbouring or nearby dwelling”. DfI consider that as a general policy this requirement should have a general application to all forms of development. However, as worded criterion iii. relates solely to proposals for new residential development. All the policies in the dPS are cross cutting and are set in the context of the strategic spatial proposals and other policies relating to various sectors. We do not consider any amendment to the wording of this criterion is necessary in the context of GP1.

10.5

Other representors consider criterion b point iii. of GP1 does not incorporate an appropriate degree of flexibility to allow for cases where new development cannot be sited to maintain sufficient separation distances. Footnote twenty-one indicates the type of infrastructure that requires an appropriate separation distance. Policy WMT 4 Development in the vicinity of a Waste Management facility includes a requirement to consider proximity from waste management or WWTW facilities. Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure (page 45) relates to overhead cables and sub stations and the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields. There is a policy laguna for the protection of

LDP2021/MEA/PS

residential amenity for new sites close to existing renewable energy infrastructure. The SPPS sets out the general provisions for safeguarding residential and work environs at paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12. Criterion b) iii. has regard to the general regional policy approach and practice in that the balancing of material considerations would always allow for the consideration of exceptional circumstances in decision-making. Criterion b) iii is reasonable flexible and soundness test CE4 is satisfied. 10.6

Representors consider that Criterion c) relating to Access, Movement and Car Parking makes insufficient reference to local car parking strategies and sustainable patterns of development. These issues are considered in Section 13 of this report as such provisions are more appropriately located within the more detailed operational policies for transportation. We are satisfied that Criterion c) of GP1 as drafted is sound and does not require any amendment.

10.7

The Council’s ability to determine information requirements during the processing of applications is set out at paragraph 1.7.10 of the dPS. Paragraph 6.1.9 of the justification and amplification text of GP1 details the approach to Transport Assessments (TA) and is broadly consistent with that contained in paragraph 6.303 of the SPPS. While not explicitly stated a TA can assist in demonstrating capacity on the network (or its upgrade) and appropriate sustainable transport mechanisms. Policy GP1 criterion c) ii. and iii requires compliance with both aspects. Policy GP1 does not require an amendment to specifically mention the need for a TA to provide a clear mechanism for implementation to satisfy the tests of soundness.

10.8

Policy GP1 criterion d) relates to Safety and the Safeguarding of Human Health/Well Being. This is a mechanism for the delivery of the objectives within paragraphs 4.3 – 4.12 of the SPPS that specifically deal with ‘Improving Health and Well-Being’. Diagram 1 of the SPPS, page 16, sets out the determinants of health and well-being in our neighbourhoods. The associated commentary relating to this diagram identifies the myriad of issues that can influence and determine health outcomes. Paragraph 4.6 of the SPPS states that in that taking account of health issues and the needs of local communities may include consideration of potential health and health equity impacts, expected future changes and any information about relevant barriers to improving health and well-being. However, there is no policy imperative for submission of Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) for major development. We are satisfied that Policy GP1 Criterion d) has taken account of the SPPS. Policy GP1 does not need to include HIAs to satisfy soundness test C3.

10.9

PM-038 and PM-040 seek to insert additional text in respect of contaminated land. PM-156 provides a definition for the abbreviations and glossary. While this is dealt with under a different legislative regime1, the evidence base for the plan area refers to known contamination sites including COMAHH sites. Known or suspected contamination will be further considered at the LLP stage of the plan process and may be included as Key Site Requirements (KSR) within zoned sites. However, an overarching provision for development likely to be affected by contamination is therefore required in the context of Policy GP1 to ensure a coherent strategy. RA029 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE1.

The Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (WCLO) sets out legal provisions for the introduction of a Contaminated Land Regime for NI LDP2021/MEA/PS

10.10 Representors seek an additional criterion in part e) requiring biodiversity net gain to help address targets on halting biodiversity loss. Policy GP1 Criterion e) iv. sets the requirement for all proposals to not have an unacceptable adverse impact on local biodiversity and delivery of ecosystem services beneficial to the community. The biodiversity duty is a broad statutory duty that relates to the plan. It is generally promoted throughout the natural heritage policies. Public bodies’ duty to conserve biodiversity in accordance with Section 1 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 applies regardless of the wording of Policy GP1. Sufficient regard has been had to these requirements to satisfy soundness test C4 and it is not necessary that criterion e) is expanded to require biodiversity net gain. 10.11 In consideration of the clarification issued by the Chief Planner regarding the status of planning guidance, dated 18th October 2019, PM-039 removes the reference to Development Control Advice Notes from paragraph 6.1.8 page 117 of the dPS. RA030 is necessary to take account of guidance issued by the Department in accordance with soundness test C3. 10.12 There is no need to use the terminology ‘urban-rural fringe’ within paragraph 6.1.22 of the dPS as the reference to a clear distinction between the urban entity and the countryside provides a clear mechanism for implementation of Policy GP1. 10.13 Alleged omissions related to the Marine Plan for NI, the efficient use of energy, water and other resources, and climate resilience would be superfluous to the provisions set out elsewhere within the dPS. None are not necessary to satisfy the requirements for soundness. 10.14 References within the LDP to energy consumption and sustainable design could potentially conflict with building regulations and have insufficient regard for that consenting regime. Sufficient regard has been had to each considering soundness test C4. Matters which sit outside planning legislation should not be included within the policy headnote. 10.15 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 107-110 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the general policy for all development. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA029-RA030 that the strategic approach set out in the general policy is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.0 Sustainable Economic Growth 11.0

Policy ECD1 Economic Development in Settlements seeks to focus employment and services within the main towns as the most sustainable locations as highlighted by the SPPS and RDS. Policy is also set out for such purposes in villages and small settlements. For industrial uses and storage and distribution uses in towns they are directed to land zoned for such purposes or an existing industrial area. Paragraph 7.1.11 of the justification and amplification text of the dPS refers to the grouping of high technology knowledge driven light industrial users, acknowledging the benefits of grouping them in industrial facilities or business parks. While some of these or other B1 Use Class business premises may include users with a specific need for facilities such as clean rooms and research and development provision its lone inclusion could indicate that others are to not be facilitated. The inclusion of a reference to specific user requirements is not required for implementation of the policy or necessary for soundness test CE3.

11.1

PM-042 clarifies which use classes are included within the settlement hierarchy tiers identified in the headnote of Policy ECD1. This removes any potential ambiguity with footnote 24 which sets out the definition of economic development uses in terms of the Use Classes Order. RA031 is necessary for consistency in terms of soundness test CE1. In the section on villages and small settlements PM-042 also seeks to replace business and industry use with the term economic development use. Representors consider there may be uses that could be considered as “economic development” that would fall outside Class B (Use Classes Order). Notwithstanding the likelihood of this scenario, the second part of the modification is inconsistent with the first which seeks to be more specific for an easier fit with the Use Classes Order and this aspect would fail soundness test CE1.

11.2

PMC-08 seeks a further change to PM-042 to include district centres as one of the locations where B1 business use are allowed. Paragraph 6.85 of the SPPS does not require provision for Class B1 uses within district centres within the larger centres. The wording ‘such as’ indicates it is an example of somewhere that Councils may specify in the LDP. The plan area does not have any existing designated district centres and the decision not to include them within PM042 is robust on this basis. Representations in respect of the omission of district centres from the retail hierarchy are set out in the retail section of this report.

11.3

Paragraph 7.1.10 of the dPS refers to new business being directed to within the built-up footprint when a settlement has no town centre boundary. MEAM08 was submitted by the Council at the hearing to change ‘built up’ to ‘urban footprint’. To comply with soundness test CE3 RA032 is necessary to be coherent with the glossary on page 312 of the dPS providing a clear mechanism for the implementation of the policy.

11.4

Paragraph 7.1.12 of the dPS states that retailing or commercial leisure development will not be permitted on land zoned for economic development uses. As they are not economic development uses, such proposals should be considered within the suite of retail policies. Soundness test CE1 does not require that the sentence is duplicated within the headnote of Policy ECD1 for the policy requirements to logically flow.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.5

This second category within ECD1 titled villages and small settlements refers to lower tier settlements. Paragraph 7.1.13 of the dPS batches small towns in the same paragraph as villages and small settlements and could therefore be read as a lower tier settlement. Paragraphs 7.1.9 and 7.1.12 of the dPS refers only to main towns. In response to considerations on any potential ambiguity the Council clarified that the policy test for small towns is within the first half of the policy headnote; the towns section of ECD1.This is also incorporated in RA031 to ensure a coherent strategy and internal consistency in compliance with soundness test CE1. RA033 is required to amend paragraph 7.1.13.

11.6

Criterion c) requires that proposals make a substantial contribution to the economy of the town. As this is translated from regional policy in PPS 4 no further elaboration is necessary. It is a matter of judgement at development management stage.

11.7

Paragraph 6.94 of the SPPS relates to the identification of opportunities for mixed use development including economic development uses. The Council consider it is the role of the LPP process to consider this through key site requirements and the call for sites exercise. This is a coherent and logical approach.

11.8

Policy ECD2 Retention of Economic Development Land protects existing economic development land and sets out how only exceptionally will the Council consider the loss of employment land to other uses. Some of the changes requested to this policy are also pertinent to SGS6 Strategic Allocation of Land for Economic Development. Its final sentence in the SGS6 headnote states that ‘These zonings will be complemented by Policy ECD2 Retention of Economic Development Land which aims to protect land in settlements currently or last used for economic development use’. This aspect is explained in paragraphs 5.4.10 & 5.4.20 of the dPS. The headnote of Policy ECD2 refers to “zoned land”. Paragraph 2.2.24 of the dPS states that local designations and associated policies will remain in place until superseded by the adoption of the Mid and East Antrim LPP. Therefore, pending adoption of the LDP in its entirety, Policy ECD2 must logically apply to land and buildings zoned for employment use in the CAP 2001, which is the statutory DPD, the LAP 2010 and the BAP 1986-2001. DBMAP would also have material weighting. We do not consider this ambiguous.

11.9

Any decision to reallocate land zoned for economic development use to other uses ought to be made through the LDP process. Representations have been received seeking the rezoning of specific sites. Counter representations have similarly rebutted the reasons for the requested changes. The suggestion that existing or committed employment land may be suitable for residential or mixed use would be for consideration during the LPP stage of the plan process. It is not necessary to state that if employment land is to be released for alternative uses, an adequate supply of employment land should be retained to meet the needs of the plan area. Policy ECD2, takes account of the SPPS, paragraph 6.89. We are satisfied it is reasonably flexible to deal with changing circumstances.

11.10 In respect of zoned land criterion c) of Policy ECD2 requires that the proposal will not lead to a significant diminution of the economic development land resource. This term is consistent with regional policy at PED7, Retention of zoned land and economic development uses in PPS 4 where it is used without amplification. The Council can draw on the industrial land monitor in the exercise of their planning judgement at development management stage. No issues with soundness arise in this regard. LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.11 The Council provided robust reasoning for their use of one year of continuous active marketing within the unzoned land criterion c) of ECD2. Representors seeks changes to the timeframe. Both INI and counter representor CR001 dispute the appropriateness of a reduction to 6 months. They request the timeframe is extended to three years. Timeframes need to be sufficiently long to test the market setting aside short term issues but if too long they could result in the site sitting empty for a significant period of time. To set out further detail on the types of evidence that would be necessary would be overly prescriptive and would overburden the dPS. The criterion strikes a coherent and effective balance between soundness tests CE3 and CE4. No amendment is necessary in this respect.

11.12 Park and ride sites are not an economic development use. Policy provision for their development within Policy ECD2 would therefore be misplaced. Policy ECD2 is sound as written.

11.13 Policy ECD3 Development incompatible with economic development uses relates to facilities in the vicinity of existing operating or approved economic development. Use. This policy is applicable to the protection of economic development uses including at the port in Larne. The Council confirmed Larne Port Authority have no current demand for additional space at the port, hence the absence of a specific policy at dPS and suggest a policy incorporating key site requirements could be delivered as part of the LPP. The regional policy direction at paragraph 6.247 of the SPPS states: ‘Development proposals adjacent to such facilities which would seriously jeopardise their future expansion should not be permitted’. As a key location to promote economic competitiveness many Port operations would fall within the definition of economic development uses. Others potential operations could sit outside this use class to take account of the direction in the RDS as a strategic gateway and an important location for energy and gas installations. Any key site requirements related to a site specific policy for Larne Port at LPP should ensure the context of Policy ECD3 is incorporated to ensure proposed development operations that are adjacent to the port do not undermine its role.

11.14 Economic Development in the Countryside is considered within Policy ECD4. PM-041 amends footnote 24 on page 122 of the dPS to note that agriculture and forestry development are considered in this policy. This is RA034. PM-043 inserts the reference to agricultural and forestry development into the title. The proposed modifications are necessary to aid the clear implementation by putting beyond reasonable doubt that both types of development are to be considered within Policy ECD4. This is appropriate and realistic. RA035 is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness CE1 and CE2. It would overburden the plan to set out all the forms of manufacturing or industry that this policy could relate to such amendments are not necessary for the policy to be sound.

11.15 PM-044 amends criterion d)i. of the section of ECD4 on small rural projects. It replaces the word ‘unmet’ need with the word ‘locational’ need. PM-049 makes a corresponding amendment to paragraph 7.1.25 of the dPS. In response to representations on the PMs and questions arising at the hearing regarding the demonstration of economic benefit to the rural economy or community MEAM09 was submitted by the Council at the hearing. It also makes clear the requirement to demonstrate the economic benefit of a proposal to the rural economy and to the community. RA036 is necessary to take account of regional policy in the SPPS at paragraph 6.87. We have not been given sufficient evidence of any ambiguity between the Small Rural Start Up Projects Section in the policy headnote and paragraph 7.1.25. LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.16 PM-045 relates to section f) iv. on Agricultural and Forestry Development. It clarifies the need to comply with the preceding three policy tests before an alternative siting away from established buildings is considered. This will ensure a logical flow of the policy as per soundness test CE1 and is RA037 is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness.

11.17 PM-046 relates to the replacement of the term non listed with unlisted. As set out elsewhere this necessary for soundness test C3. Paragraph 7.1.29 should be amended accordingly. RA038 is necessary to satisfy the tests of soundness.

11.18 PM-047 relates to potential acceptable ancillary uses and commercial leisure and retailing which unless acceptable under Policy RET4 will not be permitted in the countryside. Contrary to what the formatting suggests this should apply to all the sections (a) to g). Paragraph 7.1.29 of the dPS is the corresponding justification and amplification and it should also form a separate section as it is not only applicable to the conversion and reuse of buildings. RA039 provides a logical flow of the policy as required by soundness test CE1.

11.19 Criterion a) I, of Policy ECD4 requires that there is no major increase in the site area of the enterprise. As this is consistent with soundness test C3 (taken from PPS 4 Policy PED 3) further explanation is not necessary. It remains a matter for professional judgement during the assessment of a proposal. No amendment is necessary to make this part of the policy sound.

11.20 Policy ECD4 criterion c) relates to major industrial development in the countryside. The last sentence of its J&A paragraph at 7.1.24 of the dPS reads, ‘Existing enterprises in an urban area will not be permitted to relocate to the countryside’. This text is more onerous than the headnote of criterion c) which provides for the favouring of an edge of settlement location over a location elsewhere in the rural area. In the absence of any evidence specific to the plan area to indicate a material difference to regional policy within paragraph 6.88 of the SPPS or paragraph 5.23 of PPS 4 paragraph 7.1.24 should incorporate the word ‘normally’ to satisfy soundness test C3 and for internal coherence under soundness test CE1. PM-048 seeks to insert an additional reference to consideration of transport impacts into this paragraph. This is sufficient to ensure consistency with regional policy in paragraph 6.88 of the SPPS. RA040 is required relating to the inclusion of the word normally and to refer to transport impacts. Soundness test CE3 does not require the duplication of the reference to transport and environment impacts within the headnote, both are tested through the general policy. As the dPS is read in the round In accordance with the provisions with paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS there is no need to include 'accords with other provisions of the LDP'.

11.21 Criterion f) of Policy ECD4 relates to Agricultural and Forestry Development. It requires that a proposal for intensive farming or animal husbandry will be required to demonstrate that it will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact, including in relation to ammonia emissions. The context of the use of the word ‘significant’ is sufficiently explained at paragraph 1.7.9 of the dPS. In respect of ammonia emissions, all proposals are subject to the standing advice from NIEA. Shared Environmental Services (SES) advise in respect of the assessment of significant impacts. We are satisfied that alongside the overlapping legal context flexibility is required as this is a regional matter currently under review. We consider an appropriate

LDP2021/MEA/PS

balance has been achieved between a clear mechanism for implementation and a policy that is reasonably flexible to deal with changing circumstances.

11.22 Reference within Policy ECD4 to minerals development is unnecessary for a coherent strategy under soundness test CE1. Notwithstanding the economic benefits they bring the mechanism for consideration of proposals for minerals is within the minerals section of the dPS (Section 7.4). This is consistent with the approach in paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS which acknowledges that all policies should be read in the round.

11.23 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 112-117 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the economic development policies. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the comments of counter representors, the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and any representations received to them. Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA031RA040 that the strategic approach set out in the economic development section of the dPS is sound. Retail and Town Centres

11.24 In response to questions relating to whether the Policy RET1 logically flows MEAM10 was submitted by the Council at the hearing. This matter arising considered the placement of the words ‘outside these locations’ in the third paragraph within the headnote of RET1 is revised to refer to ‘outside of town centres and small-town centres’. This is also reflected in paragraph 7.2.14 of the dPS. The amendments suggested in this matter arising are necessary to be consistent with the sequential assessment within paragraphs 6.281 and 6.282 of the SPPS and satisfy soundness test C3. MEAM10 suggests that Footnote 26 is amended as the reference to town centre boundaries did not fully reflect the scope of commercial areas within the extant plan designations including commercial cores. The second criterion c), 3rd paragraph of the headnote, should be amended to read: ‘c) there will be no significant adverse impact on any centre within the whole catchment’. This wording reflects the catchment which contains multiple town centres. As the policy needs to be realistic and appropriate to accord with soundness test CE2 these changes are necessary for soundness. The insertion of ‘normally’ in the context of the 300m edge of centre distance at criterion a) enables proposals to consider local circumstances. This flexibility in the default distance for matters such as accessibility and connectivity is needed for internal consistency with within paragraph 7.2.16 of the justification and amplification in accordance with soundness test CE1. To provide a coherent strategy the suggested wording as provided for by MEAM10 is the basis for RA041. This supersedes the suggestions presented by PM-050 and PM-051.

11.25 The headnote of Policy RET1 promotes town centres by setting a presumption to refuse alternative sites outside town centres and small town centres that are either not suitable, not viable or not available (or any combination thereof) (third paragraph criterion a). The justification and amplification text at paragraph 7.2.17 of the dPS provides examples of how this could be demonstrated under each of the three categories. Paragraph 6.289 of the SPPS refers to of examples of why sites would not be considered as alternatives. While servicing arrangements are mentioned is not practical to list every matter that could be relevant. As factors such as availability of parking or operational effectiveness are fact and site specific, LDP2021/MEA/PS

they are best considered as part of the planning application alongside UK case law to assist the planning judgement of alternative sites. The wording of policy strikes an appropriate balance between flexibility and overburdening the plan and is consistent with soundness test C3.

11.26 PM-052 corrects the erroneous reference to city centre at paragraph 7.2.17 of the dPS. While typographical changes can be corrected outside of the IE process, this error contradicts the retail hierarchy at SGS7 which does not contain a city centre. The correction is therefore necessary for CE1 to ensure a coherent strategy from which the policies logically flow. RA042 is necessary to satisfy soundness.

11.27 The assessment of qualitative and quantitative need is set out at criterion b) of the third paragraph of Policy RET1. Technical Supplement 6-Retailing and Town Centres (DPS-125) sets out its rationale as protecting the overall retail hierarchy whilst allowing for tempered growth of local tier centres. The test of retail impact is at criterion c) (as amended by MEAM10). Policy RET1 is consistent with the SPPS paragraph 6.283 which directs that all applications for retail or town centre developments above a threshold that are not in a town centre location should undertake a full assessment of retail impact as well as need. Subject to amendments RA041RA042 Policy RET1 is sound.

11.28 Policy RET2 Retail Impact Assessment requires a retail impact assessment for proposals which have a floor space of 750 square metres gross and above outside Ballymena and Larne Town Centres and 500 square metres outside Carrickfergus town centre and the small towns. Technical Supplement 6: Appendix D- The Mid and East Antrim Retail and Commercial Leisure Needs Assessment (DPS-127) refers to an average unit size in the town centres of Ballymena and Larne as 263sqm and 292sqm respectively. Carrickfergus is smaller at 187sqm. Given their scale, the Council considered that the impacts of larger retail provision would be more keenly felt in their towns than many larger towns throughout Northern Ireland. The setting of the thresholds for the plan area have taken account of the flexibility for the individual plan area within paragraph 6.283 of the SPPS. Their evidence base supports the selected thresholds of 500 or 750 square metres gross external floor area.

11.29 The last sentence in the policy headnote refers to a retail impact assessment providing a proportionate response to the proposal being sought. Representors cite inconsistency with paragraph 6.283 of the SPPS in respect of when applications should be accompanied by an assessment of retail impact and need. PM-056 alters paragraph 7.2.21 of the dPS to list as a) to f) the paragraph 6.290 SPPS tests for the assessment of impact and need. This supports the logical flow of the final sentence and is necessary for coherence to meet soundness test CE1. RA043 is necessary to satisfy soundness. RIAs are a common-place planning tool for the consideration of the scale and type of development. Given that their scope and content can vary dependent on the location and scale of a proposed development, the non inclusion within the policy headnote does not make it at odds with policy or guidance issued by the Department. While the provision for a proportionate response as set out in the final sentence of RET2 allows for flexibility within the retail assessment, they are set out at criteria a)-f) within paragraph 7.2.21. The extent of analysis required to demonstrate each would be proportionate to the proposal. Accordingly, we are satisfied that soundness test C3 is met in this instance.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.30 MEAM11 was submitted by the Council in response to questions at the IE hearing sessions which focused on the consistency with the retail hierarchy SGS7 and in particular, if references to town centres incorporates small town centre boundaries. PM-053, PM-054, PM-055 and PM-057 are incorporated into MEAM11 where required. It adds text to the headnote relating to when a proposal is to be refused consistent with the regional test at paragraph 6.290 of the SPPS. This ensures that the justification and amplification does not contain a higher test than the Policy RE2 headnote and is necessary for a clear mechanism for implantation in light of soundness test CE3. MEAM11 also removes the second paragraph of Policy RET2 as the reference to small town centre boundaries is instead incorporated into the first paragraph, the third paragraph as originally drafted and the word ‘boundaries’ added to the bulleted size thresholds. It also expands on the situation within the small towns in the justification and amplification paragraph 7.2.19 of the dPS. These changes are needed for the logical flow of the policy from the hierarchy at SGS7 as per soundness test CE1. PM-055 is also incorporated within MEAM11 and relates to paragraph 7.2.19 of the dPS. It confirms that a retail impact assessment is also required when a store extension outside a designated centres results in the overall development exceeding the relevant size thresholds. This is required for clear policy implementation and is necessary for soundness test CE3 and to take account of regional policy in the SPPS. RA044 is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness.

11.31 Retail warehousing does not fall within the retail hierarchy as set out in the SPPS and/or SGS7. A bespoke policy or detail for this format of retail provision would not be logical or coherent in the absence of an overarching context which demonstrates their role within the hierarchy. Such proposals can be assessed within the policy context provided dependant on their location. Policy RET2 is sound subject to RA043 and RA044.

11.32 Policy RET3 Retail in Villages, Small Settlements and Local Centres includes the requirement that proposals in these areas meet criteria a) and b). The direction and provisions for village and small settlements is consistent with paragraph 6.278 of the SPPS. A Local Centre sits above village centres in the retail hierarchy (SGS7), offering a smaller range of facilities than the higher tier small town centres. Following questions at IE in response to representations made to PM-058 the Council submitted MEAM12 in respect of Local Centre policy. The situation where an extension to a local centre is proposed is consistent with the wording in the second sentence of paragraph 6.276 of the SPPS which contains the test of adverse impact. Representors seek alignment with the first sentence of the SPPS at paragraph 6.276 which refers to ‘retain and consolidate exiting local centres’. The dPS has considered this as it is assessed via RET 3 criterion b) which stipulates that it is in keeping with the scale, nature, and design appropriate to the character of the settlement or centre. However, paragraph 6.276 also requires that local centres should be complementary to the role and function of the town centre. This goes beyond the two criteria listed within Policy RET3. RA045 is necessary as it incorporates this additional issue within the proposed wording of MEAM12 to take account of regional policy as per soundness test C3.

11.33 Further representation received to PM-058 considered that the requirement to show no adverse impact could be equated to a requirement for testing via a retail impact assessment, which they consider would be a deterrent to investment. We do not consider this to be ambiguous in the context of the previous policy which sets out the circumstances when a retail impact assessment will be required.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.34 Policy RET4 Rural Shops and Roadside Service Facilities provides for modest proposals in the countryside such as farm or craft shops, or shops serving tourist recreational facilities. Policy RET4 also provides for roadside service facilities. Four circumstances permit this type of development in the open countryside including when ancillary to the selling of fuel. As set out in paragraph 1.13 of the SPPS, Policy IC 15 of the PSRNI is an extant policy. While the word modest in criterion d) does not evolve from that policy the purpose of the IE is not to make the wording of policy better but to consider if the current wording is sound. Concerns about the interpretation and application of ‘modest’ do not show it needs to be amended to render Policy RET4 sound.

11.35 Criterion a) Roadside Service Facilities requires that proposals will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the vitality and viability of an existing centre within the catchment. To ensure the justification and amplification at paragraph 7.2.23 does not contain a higher test than the policy headnote this should form a separate test applicable to both sections of the Policy to satisfy soundness test CE3. It is also necessary for consistency with paragraph 6.279 of the SPPS as it relates to rural shops. RA046 is necessary to satisfy the tests of soundness.

11.36 PM-059 is a typographical deletion. It is not necessary for soundness and is for DfI to direct the Council on how to amend such typographical changes. The dPS is consistent with the SPPS without a bespoke policy for garden centres. Such proposals can be determined based on their individual merits within the suite of existing policies. This does not raise an issue of soundness.

11.37 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142), at pages 118-122, the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the retail and town centre policies. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the counter representations and the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and any representations received to them. Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA041-RA046 that the policy approach set out for retail and town centres is sound. Tourism

11.38 Incorporating a test of significantly comprising landscape character within Policy TOU1 is unnecessary as it would overlap with 'setting' which can include landscape and historic setting.

11.39 PM-061 relates to Policy TOU2 Tourism Development in Settlements and Tourism Opportunity Zones. PM-063 relates to Policy TOU3 Tourism Development in the Countryside. Each PM inserts a paragraph in the associated justification and amplification to highlight the context of the natural heritage SPA, Ramsar designations or marine designated sites. The paragraphs highlight the need to consider other legislative requirements which relate specifically to the natural heritage and marine environment within opportunity sites within the Tourism Strategy at SGS8 or designated Special Countryside Areas (SCAs) and European designated sites. Given their locational context is of direct relevance to tourism assets the proposed modifications are necessary for effectiveness and cohesiveness and the clear implementation of policy. RA047 and RA048 are necessary for soundness. As noted elsewhere it is inconsistent with the approach in the plan introduction to isolate one dPS policy when others could be also relevant.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Neither PM-060 nor PM-062 which seek to replicate the need to comply with Policy NAT1 are necessary for soundness test CE3.

11.40 Policy TOU4 Tourist Amenities in the Countryside provides the context for both new proposals and for the expansion of an existing tourist amenity. In respect of the later the “overall development” is an easily understood concept taken from regional policy in PPS16 whereby there is physical and economic synergy within the area. Inclusion of a prescriptive definition in the dPS Glossary would be at odds with soundness test CE4.

11.41 PM-064 seeks to add a footnote to conform that proposals will still require a tourism benefit statement in the absence of a published regional or Council tourism strategy. Regardless of the subsequent request within PMC-17, the text as originally written is not ambiguous. The last sentence in the section sub-titled New Proposals states ‘Such applications must be supported by a tourism benefit statement and a sustainable benefit statement’. The first sentence of paragraph 7.3.18 uses the same non-discretionary language and requires that the statement shows how the proposal will further the aims of any regional or Council’s tourism strategy. In the event that such a strategy is not available a tourism benefit statement must still be provided albeit without reference to the aims of the tourism strategy. PM-064 is superfluous and is not required for soundness.

11.42 Policy TOU5, Hotels, Guest Houses and Tourist Hostels in the Countryside set outs the circumstances when such proposals will be supported by the Council. In paragraph one criterion c) the reference to ‘on the periphery of a settlement’ is consistent within the regional strategic policy at paragraph 6.260 of the SPPS. MEAM13 was submitted by the Council at the hearing session of the IE to avoid the interchangeable use of ‘close to’ and ‘periphery’ throughout the other sections of the policy and provide for a coherent approach in accordance with soundness test CE1. RA049 is necessary for soundness.

11.43 PM-067 amends the text for Replacement of an Existing Rural Building paragraph 7.3.20 of the dPS to insert a footnote reference to Appendix B which provides examples of environmental benefit. It also contains detail for situations when the existing building is vernacular and the evidence to be provided to support proposals in this circumstance. This would assist to provide a coherent strategy by providing clarity in policy interpretation and is needed for soundness test CE3. RA050 is therefore necessary for soundness.

11.44 PM-065, PM-066 and PM-068 relate to the change in terminology from non-listed to unlisted. As detailed elsewhere this is necessary for to take account of regional policy in the SPPS and comply with soundness test C3. This is RA051 and is necessary to satisfy the tests of soundness. Subject to RA049-RA051 Policy TOU5 strikes an appropriate balance and is sound.

11.45 Policies TOU6 relates to Self-Catering Accommodation in the Countryside and Policy TOU7 provides the provisions for new and extended holiday parks in the countryside. It is not necessary that the later direct applicants to the new 'Model Licence Conditions 2019' for caravan sites given they are out with the planning regulations. Both are sound as written.

11.46 Policy TOU8 Major Development in the Countryside, Exceptional Circumstances requirements is consistent with paragraph 6.261 of the SPPS. It is not necessary that paragraph 7.3.36 is expanded to refer to areas which are adjacent to, proximate or linked in some way to LDP2021/MEA/PS

designations or European Protected Site, and the legislative requirement to undertake such wider considerations as part of the HRA. The previous paragraph (paragraph 7.3.35) already refers to Appendix B Tourist Amenities in the Countryside - Sustainability Assessment which includes a range of environmental criteria that should be met. The policy requires compliance with Policy TOU3 – All Tourism Development in the Countryside. Criterion b) requires accordance with the other provisions of the LDP. The suite of natural heritage policies are therefore applicable, and these is no need to repeat those provisions as the dPS should be read in the round as set out in paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS.

11.47 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 123-129 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the tourism policies. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and any representations received to them. Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA047-RA051 that the approach set out for tourism development is sound. Minerals Development

11.48 Mineral extraction is an indigenous industry in the plan area with nine active quarries and a salt mine. Technical Supplement 8-Minerals Development (DPS-129) at paragraph 3.2-3.5 contains detail including their cumulative value to the local economy. DfE’s Minerals and Petroleum Branch Annual Mineral Statement (AMS) is based on 90 quarry returns in 2017. Issues were raised by representors in connection with the AMS such as the production cost and ‘value of the minerals industry’ and the questionnaire returns containing non-compulsory questions. It was accepted by all parties that there is a recognised deficit in knowledge, however representors at the hearing were in broad agreement with the revised figures within PM-070. After processing the value of minerals production economy is worth around £65m to the district economy in addition to the employment of 84,000 people accurately in geo science jobs as per PM-069. The figures are realistic and RA052 and RA053 are necessary to satisfy soundness test CE2.

11.49 Paragraphs 6.153 – 6.161 of the SPPS identify considerations to be taken on board in when preparing a LDP. The SPPS states that in preparing LDPs councils should bring forward appropriate policies and proposals that must reflect the policy approach of the SPPS, tailored to the specific circumstances of the plan area. Policy MIN4 Areas of Constraint on Mineral Development (ACMD), has been defined in line with SPPS to protect areas of intrinsic landscape, amenity, scientific or heritage value. However, representors consider it is inappropriate to proceed with this designation with a corresponding set of designations to safeguard mineral resources which are of conservation value and seek to ensure that workable mineral resources are not sterilised by other surface development which would prejudice future expansion. The only balancing designation to safeguard a minerals resource in the dPS relates to the salt mines at Carrickfergus. Council advise this is a consequence of the lack of regional information on minerals.

11.50 The first bullet of 6.155 of the SPPS refers to LDPs ensuring that sufficient supplies of construction aggregates can be made available for use within the local/regional market to meet future likely needs over the plan period. The Council have advised that they did consult LDP2021/MEA/PS

with the quarries following the launch of the POP, requesting estimates for existing resources, annual excavation rates and need to expand over plan period but the response was not comprehensive. While the dPS seeks to ensure that supplies of raw materials are provided to accommodate economic growth (through potential expansion of existing quarries as well as the opening of new working), it is not possible to precisely quantify the required supply.

11.51 The Council are part of the Regional Minerals Working Group which aims to establish a regional supply and demand picture, which will also help assess import needs. While they have met just twice due to Covid restrictions, it is intended that this group will also co-ordinate data gathering for minerals across all council areas. The terms of reference are based on a threestage process, the first short term objective is to agree the baseline data for reporting annually. At stage 2 the group membership will be expanded to include representatives from the minerals industry. After 2 years Stage 3 may also require external expertise given a lack of technical expertise in assessing demand. Representations related to the timeliness of the review or opportunities for scrutiny of its findings are outside of the scope of the IE. The justification and amplification text at paragraph 7.4.8 of the dPS confirms that further work in respect of the mineral resource is needed and should be available for the plan review stage of the plan process. This is sufficient to satisfy soundness test CE1.

11.52 Paragraph 6.156 within the SPPS does not place a necessity on the Council to identify Mineral Reserve Areas (MRAs) but rather states that in preparing their LDP it may also identity areas most suitable for minerals development within the plan area. Such areas will normally include areas of mineral reserves, where exploitation is likely to have the least environmental and amenity impact with good accessibility. Paragraph 14.3 of DPPN 7: The Plan Strategy, refers to how a Council should safeguard minerals resources which are of economic or conservation value and seek to ensure that workable mineral resources are not sterilised. Over and above the suite of associated strategic and operational policy, it is difficult to envisage how the Council could address all the considerations specified by policy and guidance without a regional overview of minerals resources, supply, and demand.

11.53 Requests for the designation of MRAs and buffer zones around existing quarries were based on the need for protection from development which has the potential to impact upon mineral supply. Paragraph 6.150 of the SPPS highlights the effects of specific proposals can have significant adverse impacts on the environment and on the amenity and well-being of people living in proximity to operational sites. To take account of the regional strategic objectives for mineral development set out in paragraph 6.152 in the SPPS the LDP should facilitate minerals development through balancing the need for specific minerals development proposals against the need to safeguard the environment. Paragraph 6.156 of the SPPS states that in preparing LDP’s councils may identify areas most suitable for minerals development within the plan area. Accordingly, this is not specific requirement to designate a MRA in a plan area. The SA (DPS106, appendix 4) considered three options for in the context of MIN1 Minerals Development – Extraction and Processing of Hard Rock. On this basis we accept while buffer zones or mineral reserve areas could protect operations from other forms of development the knowledge deficit is a Northern Ireland wide issue, and we are satisfied that the Council has endeavoured to utilise the evidence at their disposal. Holding back the MRA designations pending the outcome of the work of the regional minerals working group is realistic and justified within the evidence base presented we are satisfied soundness test CE2 is met with this approach.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.54 Whilst the dPS does not address all the issues that the SPPS identifies, given the lack of a regional evidence-base to underpin local policies, this is not fatal to its soundness test C3. To hold the dPS back pending collation of the regional evidence base would be contrary to Section 1 of the Act. In any case the monitoring and review through the LDP process can take account of any changes of data or information in respect of emerging evidence.

11.55 PM-071 relates to the designation of to ACMDs at paragraph 7.4.7 of the implementation section of the dPS. This reflects the approach of reviewing and adding to the designated ACMD as more information becomes available. PC003 within the schedule of proposed corrections (DPS-144) reflects the fact that there is just one ACMD in the plan area. It is necessary that these changes are incorporated as RA054 for a clear mechanism for implementation in accordance with soundness test CE3.

11.56 Policy MIN1 provides policy for the extraction and processing of hard rock and aggregate when Council is satisfied it will not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon any of the six interests listed at a) to f). PM-073 is required to align the policy direction from ‘permission can be granted’ to the less ambiguous ‘permission will be granted’. PM-072 removes the duplication in presumption against mineral development in Special Countryside Areas (SCAs) and ACMD so as not to imply there is a presumption in favour within designated European sites. PM-081 adds an additional paragraph to the J&A to explain how the Policy MIN1 provides for hard rock and aggregate developments in SCAs only in exceptional national or regional importance. These changes are necessary so that this aspect of Policy MIN1 takes account of regional policy and is RA055 is necessary to accord with soundness test C3.

11.57 In response to a representor which considers it is essential that any mineral development should be in keeping with the indigenous landscape character PM-074 seeks to change criterion c) to incorporate landscape character. PM-075 makes a corresponding change to paragraph 7.4.15 of the dPS. These modifications introduce an ambiguity with regional policy; paragraphs 6.152 and 6.165 of the SPPS refer to landscape quality. The policy aims at 7.4.5 of the dPS also include minimising the impact of minerals development on landscape quality, with criterion c) as drafted consistent with this aim. These modifications are not necessary for soundness.

11.58 Paragraph 7.4.15 states that the Landscape Character Assessment will assist in assessment of impact of a proposal on local landscape character. Representors comments on the assessment including sensitivity ratings are more relevant to the building of the future evidence base related to Mineral Reserve Areas and settlement development limits, LLPAs and other designations in the context of boundaries with existing mineral sites. Changes are not necessary for the dPS stage of the process.

11.59 Groundwater and water quality potential impacts can be considered within criterion b) which refers to the water environment. PM-076 removes the reference to well-being from criterion f) and PM-077 makes a corresponding change to the justification and amplification at Paragraph 7.4.17. We agree these are a necessary change as well-being is not referred to in paragraph 6.166 of the SPPS and its inclusion would not take account of soundness test C3. Furthermore, there is no detail on how it may be tested. RA056 is necessary to satisfy soundness. LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.60 PM-078 clarifies that where a proposal is permitted under an exception in an Area of Constraint on Mineral Development or a Special Countryside Area (SCA) the proposal must still comply with the criteria a) to f). This is required for a clear mechanism for implementation in accordance with the coherence and effectiveness tests. This is RA057.

11.61 MEAM14 was submitted by the Council at the hearing to ensure coherence with paragraph 7.4.16 and ensures that the first sentence relates only to mineral development in an AONB. This is necessary for internal consistency as per soundness test CE1. This is RA058. The SPPS paragraph 6.155 requirement to carefully consider the scope for some minerals development is taken account of in the exercising of a cautious approach.

11.62 PM-079 & PM-086 are not necessary for soundness as it relates to the inclusion of specific reference to Policy NAT 1, which as noted elsewhere in this report is encompassed within the requirement that proposals must accord with other provisions of the LDP. The effect on natural environment designations or the historic environment would be considered when assessing all minerals development under MIN1 criterion (a) and (d) as well as under other relevant policies within the dPS which must be read as a whole. PM-080 removes the reference to impacting hydrologically and refers to how any minerals development on a designated site must demonstrate compliance with the HRA requirements. This is required in accordance with soundness test CE3 for a clear mechanism for implementation. RA059 is therefore necessary.

11.63 Paragraph 6.157 of the SPPS relates to valuable minerals and states that whilst their exploitation may create environment effects, there will not be a presumption against their exploitation in any area, however in considering a proposal where the site is within a statutory policy area, due weight will be given to the reason for the statutory zoning. PM-082 – PM-085 amend the Policy MIN2 Valuable Minerals to remove the double negative from the first sentence and replace the reference to the cautious approach which could be construed as too restrictive and clarify which parts of Policy MIN1 are to be applied. Paragraph 6.157 of the SPPS acknowledges there may be environmental effects which are particular to the methods of extraction or treatment of that mineral and therefore it is appropriate for criteria a)-f), as set in the policy headnote should also apply to this type of minerals development. These changes are necessary to take account of regional policy and soundness test C3. These is RA060.

11.64 MEAM15 sets out the final position from the parties at the hearing session of the IE on the definition of valuable metals after further consideration of PM-084 and PM-090. It refers to metalliferous and non-metalliferous materials licenced by DFE or the Crown Estate. We accept this change to paragraph 7.4.18 and the associated modification to the glossary definition are required for the coherence soundness tests. RA061 is necessary to satisfy soundness. PM-090 relating to MIN5 Area of Salt Reserve was withdrawn by the Council at the IE hearing sessions.

11.65 Policy MIN2 does not propose a moratorium of development but rather that there will be a presumption against all valuable minerals, within designated SCAs unless the valuable mineral is of such national or regional importance, so as to outweigh any potential adverse impact on the designation. It would therefore be for an applicant to demonstrate how a such a proposal meets this requirement and meets the MIN 1 tests. Having taken account of paragraphs 6.75,

LDP2021/MEA/PS

6.155 and 6.157 of the SPPS, the Council have provided a robust evidence base for their approach.

11.66 While DFE considered the MIN2 requirement that proposals for valuable minerals within SCAs must be of national or regional importance to be contrary to regional policy at paragraph 6.157, they confirmed that there is no valuable mineral provision within the designated SCAs. The SPPS states there will not be a presumption against their exploitation in any area, however, in considering a proposal where the site is within a statutory policy area, due weight will be given to the reason for the statutory zoning. Paragraph 6.75 of the SPPS provides for appropriate policies to be brought forward to protect SCAs from unnecessary and inappropriate development. The Council is entitled to conclude the development of valuable minerals would be an inappropriate form of development in an SCA. As valuable minerals can only be exploited where they are found we do not consider the restriction within the SCA to be contrary to soundness test C3 when the SPPS is read as a whole. Any proposal within any other statutory area would also have to comply with the policies for that area separate to MIN2. As the policies which would be based on objectives for the designation, with compliance ensuring they were not undermined, it is not necessary that the detail within paragraph 7.4.20 is expressed within the headnote of Policy MIN2.

11.67 The need for buffer zones around such sites is a matter for the Council to consider later in the process when more information is available. Whilst all representatives may not concur with the Council’s approach pending further baseline information, their opinions have been taken into account when formulating their policy.

11.68 Policy MIN3 Hydrocarbons sets out that proposals for exploitation of hydrocarbons through conventional methods of extraction must comply with policy MIN1. PM-087 inserts the additional reference to unconventional methods and compliance with policy MIN2. PM-088 relates to the superfluous use of the term gases as the ‘hydrocarbons’ encompasses oil, gas, and condensate. We acknowledge this would assist coherence. RA062 is necessary to take account of paragraph 6.157 of the SPPS as per soundness test C3.

11.69 Policy MIN4 Areas of Constraint on Mineral Development sets a presumption against minerals development other than those considered to be valuable unless one or more of three identified criteria are met. It provides for the extraction of valuable minerals including gold, platinum, or salt within ACMDs.

11.70 PM-089 relates to the exploitation of valuable minerals within an ACMD removing the reference to the cautious approach and including the assessment of such proposals dependent upon compliance with the protection of interests a) to f) in Policy MIN1 and MIN8. This is necessary for internal consistency between paragraph 7.4.28 and the approach in Policies MIN1 and MIN2. This is RA063. As all policies are considered in the round it is not necessary that the reference to compliance with the general policy and other provisions of the LDP is included.

11.71 The ACMDs from the extant CAP 2001 have not been carried through into the district proposals maps (DPS-102, DPS-103 and DPS-104). Council considered there was insufficient landscape evidence to justify these designations with the applicable LCA in the countryside (cSL6) not LDP2021/MEA/PS

referring to the need for protection from mineral development. Representors considered it was premature to proceed with the retention of the ACMD designated in the LAP 2010 without a robust evidence base and referred to the Countryside Assessment containing a lack of assessment of landscape pressure for minerals development. As it was designated under an extant plan which was subject to public inquiry process, this layer of protection is robust. DFE have stated that it gives no immediate cause for concern in terms of current Mineral Petroleum Licensing (MPL) and quarry operations. The limestone quarry at Munie Road, Glenarm is the only working quarry within the ACMD with the original boundary amended so as to allow for the extension of the workings that currently benefits from planning permission. A proposal to extend an existing operation would be assessed against the relevant criteria as set out in Policy MIN4. It is also appropriate for the cumulative effects of all minerals development proposals to be assessed, in order to prevent an unacceptable concentration of minerals development within a particular area. The exemptions to the policy are for minor applications, whose impact on the mineral resource would be negligible.

11.72 The schedule of proposed corrections (DPS-144) comprises of three areas erroneously identified as ACMCD on district proposals map 02 (DPS-103). PC001 and PC002 remove Glenagh Wood and Ballyboley Forest. PC003 has already been accepted at RA054 as it relates the introduction to the minerals section at paragraph 7.4.7 of the dPS to accurately reflect there is just one ACMD in the plan area. PC004 corrects the justification and amplification text within 7.4.26 of the dPS. We accept that PC001, PC002 and PC004 is required for a clear mechanism for implementation in accordance with soundness test CE3. They are included within RA064.

11.73 Provision is made for Councils to consider exceptions within areas protected from minerals development. There is no need to provide further quantification of the meaning of criterion a). Minor expansion of an existing working is sufficiently clear for applicants wishing to make a case under this exception. The policy exceptions a) to c) are reasonably flexible to respond to changing circumstances in line with soundness test CE4. In respect of the on-site processing of excavated material being unlikely to be permitted the use of the terminology ‘unlikely’ does not raise issues in terms of soundness tests CE1 or CE2. There is no need to provide detail on why processing would cause harm given paragraph 7.4.25 sets out the purpose behind the policy is to protect areas of intrinsic landscape, amenity, scientific or heritage value. As set out in the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) page 139 noise, vibration and dust associated with processing could have a detrimental impact on such assets but the policy wording is sufficiently flexible to allow a case to be presented where those effects are minimised.

11.74 Paragraph 6.164 of the SPPS refers to where the proposed operations are limited to short term extraction and the environmental/amenity impacts are not significant however, it does not instruct its inclusion rather referring to ‘planning authorities may consider whether proposals should be justified as exceptions’. Without a defined timeframe this could be ambiguous, and we do not find its inclusion necessary to accord with soundness test C3.

11.75 The context of preventing mineral development through the ACMDs without the corresponding policies to protect existing areas other than the areas of salt reserves has been considered in the context of the lack of MRAs. The current imbalance can be rectified once more information becomes available and is not contrary to soundness.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.76 Policy MIN 5 Area of Salt Reserve, Carrickfergus relates to an area east of Carrickfergus and north of Kilroot where permission will only be granted for surface development that meets one of two exceptions. Salt reserves are a valuable mineral resource. It is not necessary that the wording is amended to replace the reference to exceptions with the two types of development that are acceptable. We do not consider the wording to be ambiguous, it is clear there is a presumption against surface development other than in the two listed circumstances.

11.77 PM-091 is necessary for concise and clear implementation due to the risk of subsidence being from either old or new shafts or mining. It is necessary that paragraph 7.4.30 is amended for soundness test CE3. This is RA065. The glossary has been previously amended to reflect salt as a valuable mineral as per RA061.

11.78 Salt reserves are the only mineral extraction area that the plan protects. Areas at risk of subsidence also protect new development from the effects of past salt mining activities. Representors consider that this provision should be assigned to all active mineral workings in the plan area given they employ more people and contribute towards the delivery of new homes, transport schemes and other infrastructure projects. The context of preventing mineral development in lieu of a lack of designated MRAs has been considered elsewhere in this section. We have accepted there is robust evidence to show this can be rectified once more information becomes available and it is not contrary to soundness.

11.79 While representors refer to additional aspects to subsidence risk liability beyond shafts and mining this would sit outside of the planning process. The disclaimer language at paragraph 7.4.30 is taken from the Carrickfergus Area Plan and it is not an issue for soundness that reference is made to any potential matters to be covered by Informatives as they are generally covered by non-planning legislation. No further revisions to paragraph 7.4.30 are necessary because of the representations.

11.80 Policy MIN6 Development at Risk of Subsidence due to past or present underground mineral extraction relates to the disused salt mines to the east and northwest of Carrickfergus. The SPPS paragraph 6.42 refers to the subsidence at the coast with the PSRNI policy MIN6 referring to development in close proximity to active or redundant underground mines and seeks to prevent the erection of buildings in the interests of public safety. Two of the three designated areas are within the settlement development limit of Carrickfergus as defined in the extant plan. While any changes to the settlement limits are a matter for the LPP stage of the process we are advised that the limit in the vicinity of the mines are unlikely to be reduced over the plan period without alterations to the parameters of the model as they currently show a high risk of collapse due to the mine. In respect of the Tenant Mine, it last collapsed in 1990. It was deemed at risk again in 2004 and since that time data continues to be collected. This does not indicate the location of the boundaries would change. In the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the extant level of protection should be maintained.

11.81 MEAM16 was submitted by the Council at the hearing session of the IE in order to provide a link between new build development, as set out in the policy headnote, and buildings intended for human habitation in the justification and amplification paragraph 7.4.31. For coherence this is RA066 is necessary in line with soundness test CE1. It is not necessary for soundness that matters relating to dust, noise or vibration are included within Policy MIN6 or a separate LDP2021/MEA/PS

protectionist policy drafted. Such matters are relevant to all new developments close to mineral workings and are considered as part of Policy GP1.

11.82 PM-092 relates to a typographical correction and is not a matter of soundness. 11.83 Policy MIN 7 Peat Extraction sets a presumption against commercial peat extraction. PM-093 seeks to expand paragraph 7.4.36 of the dPS to confirm the presumption against applies to new sites, extension sites and renewals of existing permission to assist the implementation of Policy MIN7 and take account of paragraph 6.158 of the SPPS. This is RA067.

11.84 Paragraph 7.4.36 refers to the ‘Interpretation Manual of European Habitats’ to assess the exceptions for degraded peatland and that not reasonably capable of restoration. The requested inclusion of a guide on peat depth is only one indicator and its inclusion in lieu of all those applicable is unnecessary as the paragraph provides a satisfactory explanation of what is meant by ‘not reasonably capable of restoration’.

11.85 In respect of the request for removal of the provision for exceptions and the rewording of paragraph 7.4.37 of the dPS the Council considered there is a need for this exception advising of the possibility it may need to be used in exceptional circumstances and referred to the Water Strategy. The removal of the text in respect of management plans would not be based on a robust evidence base.

11.86 Policy MIN8 Restoration and Management of Mineral Sites requires that such proposals must take account of the specific characteristics of the site and its local context and restore or, where possible, enhance the landscape character of the area. In addition, it requires that restoration proposals should secure one of three listed benefits. PM-094 and associated PM095 relating to the justification and amplification seeks to add a fourth ‘other community, economic and environmental benefits. The SPPS at paragraph 6.161 acknowledges that 'applications must include satisfactory restoration proposals but the preferred types of reclamation and after use depend on a number of factors...' It does not set out examples of which benefits the restoration proposals should secure. In addition to the three benefits set out other examples of proposed land uses are requested such as recycling, waste, or renewable energy. They would fall within the PM given the potential benefits to the environment. While a comprehensive list is not required by regional policy the inclusion of a direction to meet one of three benefits within MIN8 does require that the list is comprehensive to enable implementation of the policy in line with soundness test CE3. This is RA068.

11.87 The SPPS refers at paragraph 6.151 to the Sustainable Development Strategy advocating the greater use of recycled building rubble in construction. However, it is not necessary for soundness that a policy is included in the minerals section to promote a secondary aggregate protocol. It is generally provided for elsewhere within Policy WMT2 - Waste Collection and Treatment Facilities. It supports proposals for the development of waste collection and treatment facilities, subject to the Waste Management Strategy and the Council Waste Management Plan (currently arc21). It allows for recycling of secondary aggregates in suitably located sites within an active or worked out quarry.

11.88 Enhancing biodiversity is one of the Policy MIN8 bulleted options. No further revisions are necessary for soundness test CE1 to meet parallel duties to conserve biodiversity. LDP2021/MEA/PS

11.89 PM-096 seeks to amend criterion a) to clarify that commencement of restoration programmes is within an agreed timeframe and to confirm that not all larger schemes can be restored in phases. PM-097 related to the same matter at the end of paragraph 7.4.39. Representors referred to the need for multiple working levels for hard rock sites which could impact on the ability to comply. We agree the modifications provide for reasonable flexibility to accord with for soundness test CE4. This is RA069.

11.90 Although not a requirement within regional policy, the Policy MIN8 Restoration and Management of Mineral Sites requires a financial guarantee in the form of a bond to ensure restoration and reinstatement of the site. This part of Policy MIN8 would only apply where to the unique circumstances of legitimate concerns over an operators financial security or should the developer fail to carry out their obligations under a planning condition or agreement. This approach is sound. PM-098 relates to the financial guarantee detail. It repeats the wording of the policy headnote. While we have no objection to its inclusion it is not therefore is not necessary for soundness.

11.91 It is not necessary to refer to access to site by officers to ensure aftercare plans are implemented correctly as relates to a separate legislative context.

11.92 To be consistent with Departmental policy and guidance, the Council have best utilised the available information which is at their disposal. In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS142) at pages 130-149 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to minerals development. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and any representations received to them. Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA052-RA069 that the strategic approach set out for mineral development is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

12.0 Building Sustainable Communities Housing in settlements 12.1

The dPS recognises that building sustainable communities is at the heart of both regional planning policy and the Council’s strategic plans. The policies in Section 8.1 are the operational policies for building sustainable communities. For the housing these follow from the provisions of the spatial growth strategy set out within strategic policies (SGS1 – SGS5) of the dPS and the provisions set within. Operational policies in the dPS are also set out for sustainable development in the countryside taking account of the strategic policies provided in the countryside strategy of the dPS (CS1).

12.2

Paragraph 8.1.14 of the justification and amplification provides text to explain the necessity for a Design Concept Statement and for a Design and Access Statement. The latter is a requirement of planning legislation (Article 6(3) of the Planning (General Development Procedure) order 2015). However, it is noted this requirement is only applicable to certain applications and not every housing proposal. Whereas Policy HOU1 requires a Design Concept Statement for new residential developments. At the hearing sessions of the IE the Council indicated that a pragmatic approach would be applied to ensure there would not be an overlap or duplication of the provision of each of these requirements for residential developments. The Council accepted that this approach was not clearly reflect in the justification and amplification text at paragraph 8.1.14 of Policy HOU1. At the hearing sessions of the IE the council presented additional text (MEAM23). The text suggested in the matters arising provides an appropriate means of addressing any ambiguity or duplication of the respective statements. RA070 requiring the insertion of a text within paragraph 8.1.14 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE2.

12.3

Should social and affordable housing be a requirement for a specific site detail of a development proposal details of this can be provided within a Design Concept Statement. This combined with assessments made in the context of the operational Policy HOU5 Affordable Housing in Settlements means there is sufficient provision when the policies are read together. Furthermore, such documents can take account of surrounding density levels on a site-by-site basis and inform the design of proposed housing scheme. No further clarification is required. No change is required to Policy HOU1 in respect of these issues.

12.4

The headnote of Policy HOU1 requires that a Concept Master Plan for a development of 200 dwellings or more or for the development, in part or full of sites of 10 hectares or more zoned for housing in the LDP or residential development on any other site of 10 Hectares. Policy QD2 of Planning Policy Statement 7 Quality Residential Environment (PPS7) prescribes thresholds for when a concept master plan is required. The thresholds set out in the dPS are lower than those stated in PPS7. At the hearing sessions of the IE the Council accepted that this requirement was a departure from regional policy. In support of this approach the Council referred to the Statement of Community Involvement Compliance Report (DPS-405 Appendix 4, Page 38) which stated the issue was considered in consultation with relevant housing stakeholders. The Council took account of policy and guidance contained in Policy QD2 of PPS but also factored in local circumstances in the plan area and over the plan period. This matter is also addressed in the Council’s Public Consultation Report (DPS-142, page 152) where the

LDP2021/MEA/PS

Council considered the proposed threshold for the submission of a Concept Master Plan is appropriate to reflect the potentially smaller sizes of housing development in the plan area. 12.5

The Council stated this approach to ensure that a well-designed Concept Master Plan will be applicable over many smaller developments rather than a limited number of larger sites. The Council referred to the analysis of applications received from January 2011 to March 2018 which indicated two applications over 200 and one application over 300 units. It is recognised that smaller housing sites are more typical to the scale of housing proposals in the plan area. Taking account of the local circumstances and the evidence base we accept that lowering the threshold for the plan area will assist to achieve the creation of quality residential developments in settlements. This approach to the applicable thresholds set out in Policy HOU1 is realistic and appropriate having considered the relevant alternatives and has been founded on robust evidence base in accordance with the test of soundness CE2.

12.6

PM-099 has been made to ensure consistency in terminology across the dPS making reference to unlisted locally important buildings as referred to at Policy HE8 of the dPS. This PM is also the subject of PM-140, PM-144, PM-146 and PM-147. Amendments to the supporting text at paragraph 8.1.5 of the dPS is also necessary to be consistent with the proposed modifications suggested to Policy HE8. RA071 is necessary to ensure that account is taken of the wording in the SPPS and that policies logically flow in accordance with soundness tests C3, CE1.

12.7

To clarify the relationship between Policy HOU1 Quality in New Residential Development in Settlements and SGS5 relating to the management of housing supply the Council have made PM-100 (DPS-143, page 54). The PM provides links the requirement of Policy HOU1 to phase 1 and phase 2 housing as referred to at SGS5. The proposed modification is necessary to provide a coherent strategy from which policies and allocations flow in the dPS. RA072 is necessary to meet soundness test CE1.

12.8

Appendix F of the dPS is an extract from the Department of Communities (DfC) Housing Association Guide (HAG) design standards. The headnote of Policy HOU1 relates to new residential development and makes specific reference to appendices E, F and G of the dPS. No further clarification is necessary to link the policy to the provisions set out within the respective appendices of the dPS.

12.9

Policy HOU1 and Policy OSL4 of the dPS are read in the round. It is not necessary that Policy HOU1 repeats the requirements for open space provision in new residential developments. Furthermore, as indicated by the headnote of Policy HOU1 residential proposals will be assessed in the context of guidance provided in Appendix D of the dPS, which includes landscape design and open space; ‘Creating Places’ design guide; and Living Place – An Urban Stewardship and Design Guide. No amendment is necessary to the wording of Policy HOU1 to further refer to open space provision and the formats and native variety of species of planting.

12.10 Policy GP1 provides criteria relating to sustainable development. Criterion e) v. requires development to take account of the efficient use of energy, water, and other resources, where feasible and practicable, integrates micro-generation and passive solar desi, to mitigate against the adverse impacts of climate change. Appendix D which Policy HOU1 refers to also addresses the issue of sustainable design. No change is necessary to the wording of Policy HOU1 to reflect these issues as they are already provided for elsewhere in the plan document. LDP2021/MEA/PS

12.11 In response to concerns raised in respect of policy clarification required for the provision of neighbourhood facilities the Council explain at in the Public Consultation Report (page 152 of DPS-142) that these will be identified at the LPP stage of the process and in consultation with the Community Plan. This is a coherent approach to the consideration and assessment of neighbourhood facilities. No change is required to the dPS to reflect this. 12.12 Policy HOU2 in respect of the Conversion or Change of Use of Existing Buildings to Flats or Apartments provides criteria to be met. Criterion b) relates to when the original property is greater than 150 square metres gross internal floor space in the case of the sub-division of an existing dwelling. Whereas paragraph 8.1.20 of the justification and amplification text of Policy HOU2 relates to situations where an existing property has less than 150 square metres internal floor space. No contradiction exists as both requirements arises as both statements are pivotal to the floor space over or under 150 square metres. 12.13 Representations sought clarification in respect of justification and amplification of Policy HOU3 in respect of residential extensions and alterations. Paragraph 8.1.29 refers to ‘house’ extensions rather than ‘residential’ extensions. The wording in the justification and amplification should reflect the intent of the policy headnote. It is evident the policy relates to residential extensions. PM-101 proposed to replace the word ‘house’ to ‘residential’. This proposed modification is required for the policy to be coherent and logically flow. RA073 is necessary to meet the test of soundness CE1. 12.14 Paragraph 6.137 of the SPPS advises that Councils shall bring forward appropriate policies and proposals that must reflect the policy approach of the SPPS. At page 155 of the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) the Council note that town centre living will be assessed in the round taking account of policies such as GP1, HOU1 and HOU2. Other policies in respect of access arrangements such as TR6 will also be considered for development proposals relating to town centre housing areas. The policy as worded when read in the round is reasonably flexible to consider access issues for town centre housing areas. 12.15 Representors raised concerns that the dPS makes no provision for the promotion of town centre housing. This issue is considered with the retail section of this report. Balanced Communities 12.16 As directed by paragraph 8.1.36 of the dPS the suite of policies provided for and including HOU5, HOU6, HOU7 and HOU8 require that residential developments to provide adaptable and accessible homes in a variety of house types, sizes, and tenure. This takes account of paragraph 6.137 of the SPPS. 12.17 Paragraph 6.143 of the SPPS relates to affordable housing stating the development plan process will be the primary vehicle to facilitate any identified need by zoning land or by indicating, through key site requirements, where a proportion of a site may be required for social/affordable housing. The SPPS is not prescriptive on the policy approach to be used in an LDP.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

12.18 The dPS states at paragraph 8.1.36 and in the glossary that affordable housing includes social rented housing and intermediate housing. No further definition or additional criteria is required to make the policy sound. Paragraph 7.46 of Technical Supplement 3 - Housing (DPS118) indicates the NIHE agreed that policy requiring the provision of affordable housing was only required in settlements where such a need was identified through the HNA. Accordingly, the analysis of potential yield for affordable housing considered those settlements where the NIHE Housing Needs Assessment (December 2018) identified a need for social rented housing. 12.19 Technical Supplement 3-Housing (DPS-118) at paragraph 7.48 sets out that a tailored approach would be appropriate according to the status of the settlement in the settlement hierarchy. For main and small towns, a requirement of 20% affordable housing was considered appropriate and for villages and small settlements 10% affordable housing was considered appropriate. It is recognised that these quotas will not 100% meet the social rented housing need. The Public Consultation Report (DPS-142, page 158) reinforces that the thresholds and quotas considered in the dPS Spatial Framework and takes account of land availability, the level of committed housing sites, local need, and projections in the HNA and discussions with NIHE. Paragraph 8.1.39 recognises that where the Council considers it necessary to provide a higher proportion of affordable housing, the LLP may seek to deliver this through key site requirements attached to specific zonings. NIHE are supportive of this approach as they consider it to be equitable to all developers and is more flexible rather than relying on just Key Site Requirements. Furthermore, the Council recognise in the Public Consultation Report (DPS142, page 158) that affordable housing also has economic benefits and has a multiplier for many areas in the market. At the hearing sessions the issue of viability of affordable housing sites in settlements was discussed and it was considered as the affordable housing units will be financed by registered housing associations schemes therefore should be financially viable. The policy as worded permits some flexibility as it will only apply where there is an identified need for each settlement. Nonetheless the Council proposed additional wording to facilitate the consideration of viability within the policy. MEAM26 was proposed adding another sentence to the policy headnote to enable more flexibility where it has been demonstrated that a development site is not viable. The introduction of this sentence into the policy headnote provides further flexibility in the policy to enable it to deal with changing circumstances. We consider RA074 is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness CE4. Taking account of this recommended amendment the issues of viability can be fully considered on a case-by-case basis through the development management process. 12.20 The evidence base that informed the approach as set out in the dPS takes account the matters considered in the POP (DPS-501) and the POP Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report (DPS504). The evidence also takes account of the 15 year housing needs assessment to 2030 Mid and East Antrim December 2018 (DPS-304). During the IE examination sessions other documents were provided by the Council in respect of the provision and considerations of affordable housing. (MEAM024 and MEAM025). These have also been considered. 12.21 Policy HOU5 relating to affordable housing in settlements provides a strategic context for the policies in LPP stage of the process to follow on from. An absence of a policy to address affordable housing in the dPS would result in a gap in policy for meeting the housing needs. The Council did consider if there is an alternative the policy approach to that in the dPS within the SA (DPS-106 Appendix 4) but concluded there was no other reasonable alternatives, as the policy option is consistent with the regional policy context. In this approach the Council have LDP2021/MEA/PS

taken account of paragraph 6.142 of the SPPS which recognises that the LDP process is the primary vehicle for delivering affordable housing need by zoning land or by indicating, through key site requirements, where a proportion of a site may be required for social and affordable housing. Concerns raised by representors in respect of the consideration of alternatives do not undermine the evidence base in relation to the provisions of Policy HOU5 of the dPS. The policy accords with soundness test CE2. 12.22 Policy HOU5 as drafted builds in reasonable flexibility to enable it to deal with changing circumstances as and when addition housing needs arise. We are satisfied that the justification and amplification text at paragraph 8.1.39 does not conflict with the headnote of Policy HOU5. This approach accords with soundness test CE4. 12.23 It is not necessary for the reference to be made to the pepper potting of shared ownership homes or that they should be dispersed throughout the development to make the policy sound. We concur with the Council’s position within the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142, page 157) that not referring to this requirement also allows flexibility. In efforts to deliver balanced communities it is not necessary that the policy should exclude the use of a heritage assets to deliver affordable housing. 12.24 To ensure the provision of affordable housing is delivered to the DfC Housing Association Guide Standards PM-102 is realistic and appropriate to meet the soundness test CE2. To have regard to the definition of intermediate housing as prescribed in the Glossary of a dPS to that as approved by the DfC PM-158 as suggested by the Council is necessary to demonstrate that account regard has been had to relevant plans, policies, and strategies. RA075 is necessary to meet the requirements of soundness test C4. 12.25 Paragraph 8.1.41 of the justification and amplification of Policy HOU5 indicates that the delivery of affordable housing will be secured by way of a planning condition or a formal planning agreement. This approach permits flexibility depending on the characteristics of the development. The dPS also provides text at paragraph 8.1.42 to provide supplementary planning guidance (SPG) to provide further clarity. The SPG would assist the development management process in considering site specific matters. As set out at paragraph 8.1.38 applicants and developers should liaise with registered Housing Associations and NIHE at an early stage. This will enable account to be given to local circumstances in the delivery of affordable housing as well as the best delivery mechanism to secure it delivery. 12.26 As noted in Section 3 of this report, many housing sites will be delivered through the existing housing commitments. At the IE the Council stated that some of the committed sites are already meeting the housing needs for the plan area. The Council referred to the Mid and East Antrim Housing Investment Plan (DPS-303, pages 41 & 42) in support of this evidence. At Appendix 3 of this document a summary of the social housing development programme for the plan area is detailed. Reference was also made to the Mid and East Antrim Housing Investment Plan (Annual Update 2020) (DPS-303, page 55) and the Council provided a copy of the Mid and East Antrim Housing Investment Plan 2021 - Annual Update (MEAM25). A summary of social housing schemes completed in the plan area from April 2020-March 2021; details of schemes on site in March 2021; and schemes programmed for 2021/2024 have been provided at pages 65 and 66 of this document. Taking account of this evidence we are satisfied that the level of existing committed residential units in the plan area this will not negatively LDP2021/MEA/PS

impact on the delivery the social housing development programme for the plan area. Going forward such evidence can be used to inform any review of the delivery of affordable housing within the dPS. 12.27 The dPS does not make any bespoke provision for supported or specialist housing. This is consistent with regional policies as such provisions are not specified at paragraph 6.142. However, the suite of policies provided with the dPS enables the consideration of any house type where there is a need to be accommodated these include Policies GP1, HOU1, HOU5, HOU6, HOU7, TR6 and COM1. This omission therefore does not give rise to an issue of soundness as there are clear mechanisms in the dPS to consider proposals that maybe required for supported or assisted living. 12.28 As noted about Policy HOU6 relating to housing mix (unit, types, and sizes) must be read in the round with the full suite of housing policies. It is not necessary for this policy to be sound to specifically reference Policy HOU1 in the context of the provision of housing mix. It is understood that the policies are not read in isolation. 12.29 Several representors expressed that the policy should provide a detailed breakdown of the preferred housing mix and clarification regarding ‘smaller schemes. PM-103 changes the emphasis of the policy headnote places the onus on the developer of a new residential development over 25 or more units to ensure sufficient provision for smaller homes to meet the future household requirements in the plan area. This approach is easier to understand and provides a coherent strategy from which policies and allocations would logically flow and ensure a housing mix. The revised wording and would ensure flexibility to deal with changing circumstances on a case-by-case basis. RA076 is necessary in the interests of soundness test CE1 and CE4. 12.30 Policy HOU7 of the dPS makes provision for the delivery of adaptable and accessible homes subject to satisfying the stated criteria a) to e). PM-104 includes a reference to other types of home such as a flat or apartment in the headnote of Policy HOU7. It is evident at paragraph 8.1.46 the intent of policy applies to new dwellings, flats and apartments including dwellings in the countryside. The proposed modification whilst minor is required to ensure the policy is coherent and that the justification and amplification text logically flows from the policy headnote. RA077 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE1. 12.31 The evidence base provided at paragraph 7.51 of Technical Supplement 3 - Housing (DPS-118) notes that the population in the plan area is ageing with projections that 24% of the population will be 65 years and over. Therefore, the housing needs of the general population must be met and include those who require wheelchair standards and those who are ageing. The POP included a preferred option which proposed that all ground floor apartments in blocks of two storey and above should be to wheelchair standards. Considering discussions with the Council’s building control section which concluded that due to technical nature of these standards, it would not be practical to bring forward such a policy at this time. Considering this the approach of the dPS is to ensure that all new residential properties conform to a number of Lifetime Homes Standards through Policy HOU7. As noted in the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at page 163 this approach aimed to meet the needs of wider society and comply with the Community Plan. The specific needs of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups have been considered. The policy provides a realistic and logical means to meet the needs LDP2021/MEA/PS

through the remit of planning. We are satisfied there is a robust evidence base to support the inclusion of this Policy HOU7 in the dPS. 12.32 Furthermore, the justification and amplification text at paragraph 8.1.47 of Policy HOU7 builds in flexibility to the application of the policy as it recognises that there may be some exceptional circumstances where not all the policy criteria can be accommodated whilst still meeting other planning policy requirements. The approach taken to formulate this policy is realistic and appropriate having considered the relevant alternatives and is founded on robust evidence base. It also takes account of the approach in the POP and Council’s Community Plan. 12.33 The inclusion of the word ‘normally’ within criterion c) in respect of the location of a living room/living space expected to be provided at the entrance of every dwelling permit flexibility and judgement in the compliance with this criterion. This approach is supported at paragraph 7.59 and 7.60 of Technical Supplement 3-Housing (DPS-118). The wording of criterion c) is therefore flexible to take account of specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis. No change is necessary to satisfy soundness. 12.34 Paragraph 6.133 of the SPPS relates to traveller accommodation recognising that travellers have distinctive needs. Policy HOU8 takes account of the SPPS and relevant sections of PPS12 Housing in Settlements. The Council is aware that NIHE are reviewing their needs assessment for traveller accommodation within the annual housing needs assessment. This will provide annual figures. This will also take account of the need for transit sites and single-family sites. Such information will inform the housing needs for the plan area and will be periodically reviewed. 12.35 Policy HOU16 relates to affordable housing in the countryside. The sequential test set out at criteria a) to c) relating to the acceptability of affordable housing in the countryside should be crossed referenced into the headnote of Policy HOU8. The application of this criteria within Policy HOU8 is realistic and appropriate to reflect the sequential test an identified housing need in the countryside as a need may not be readily met within an existing settlement. MEAM30 provides text to insert into the headnote of policy. RA078 is necessary to meet the requirements of soundness text CE2. Housing in the Countryside 12.36 In line with the strategic policy CS1 Sustainable Development in the Countryside policies HOU9-HOU16 provide the context for rural housing. Notwithstanding the cross reference within each to Policy GP1 and other provisions of the LDP, the policies should be read in the round. It is unnecessary to duplicate policy considerations throughout the policies for rural housing. 12.37 Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS refers to the supplementary guidance ‘Building on Tradition: A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside’. The requirement for good design runs throughout Criterion f) of GP1 relating to Development in the Countryside with the document specially referenced at paragraph 6.1.23 for all development proposals in the countryside. It is not necessary that the document is repeated within the countryside policies to have regard to it in line with soundness test C4.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

12.38 Policy HOU9 Replacement Dwelling includes provisions for the replacement of a nonresidential building with a single dwelling. The second and third paragraphs of the headnote demonstrate when Policy HOU9 does not apply. Whilst examples of a type of permanent redundant non-residential building would make the policy better, to set out all feasible examples would be over prescriptive. Therefore, we consider the wording as drafted is realistic and appropriate and no further detail is required to make the policy sound. 12.39 In the case of non-residential buildings, the requirement to show significant environmental benefits takes account of with the policy provisions of Policy CTY 3-Replacement Dwellings of PPS 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside. Opportunities for replacement under this part of the policy are likely to be quite limited therefore what constitutes such benefits is a matter of judgement to be made by the Council on a case by case basis. The level of detail contained within Policy HOU9 is sufficient to support the renewal and upgrade of the rural housing stock and the securing of environmental benefits (paragraph 8.1.52). Soundness test CE3 is satisfied. 12.40 Soundness test CE3 would support signposting of enabling policies in pursuit of achieving sustainable forms of development. Unlisted vernacular dwellings are referred to in the fifth paragraph. The cross-references to Policy HE4 – Demolition of Listed Buildings however, is to a policy that is in favour of retaining listed buildings (page 272 and 273 of the dPS). Given the first line of the headnote of Policy HOU9 sets a presumption to approve a replacement dwelling in the countryside this creates potential ambiguity in whether the principle of demolition and replacement of listed dwelling in the countryside is acceptable. Taking account of the provisions of paragraph 1.7.8 in that the plan must be read in the round Listed Buildings should be considered in the context of Policy HE4 to satisfy soundness test CE1. The replacement of the word non-listed with unlisted has been previously addressed. PM-105 makes the same change throughout Policy HOU9 as at Policy HE8 Unlisted Locally Important Building or Vernacular Building. RA079 is that the section on listed dwellings is removed from Policy HOU9 and references to non-listed are replaced with unlisted. This is necessary to ensure consistency. 12.41 Policy HOU9 contains sufficient provisions in the penultimate paragraph to control the overall size of replacement dwellings. By not having a visual impact significantly greater than the existing building a sufficient balance can be achieved between effective control and recognition that there is already a visual commitment in the landscape. No amendment is necessary to the wording of Policy HOU9 in this regard. 12.42 Representors sought the linking of the Policy HOU9 Replacement Dwellings with Policy HOU10 Dwellings on a Farm Business. It is unclear what purpose that would serve when considered against the plan objectives. Each are standalone policies that allow for a dwelling if their respective criteria are met. Policy HOU10 enables the selling of land from a farm business within ten years. Planning policies cannot seek to control ownership, the approach taken is consistent with regional policy. Although it is not possible to accurately quantify the extent of sell off, any general change in application numbers could be monitored as part of their 5-year review process. Tighter restrictions are not necessary to enable Policy HOU9 to satisfy the coherence and effectiveness tests.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

12.43 Site specific matters related to all rural proposals fall to be considered as part of the LPP when designations are reviewed. Policy HOU11 Dwellings for Non-Agricultural Business Enterprise and HOU12 New dwellings in Existing Clusters provide for other opportunities for dwellings in the rural area. Policies HOU10-HOU12 are sound as written. 12.44 Policy HOU13 Ribbon/Infill Development takes account of the fifth bullet point of paragraph 6.73 of the SPPS. Based on their development management experience the Council however sought to tailor CTY 8 Ribbon Development in PPS 21 to meet the specific local circumstances of the plan area. The tightening from the regional approach allows for a single infill dwelling and limits the buildings contributing to a substantial and built-up frontage to prevent the use of ancillary domestic sheds, outbuildings and garages and small agricultural buildings. We were referred to the evidence base in Technical Supplement 3- Housing (DPS-118) in support of this position. Paragraphs 7.71-7.72 relate to development pressure. Between 2012-2017 101 infill dwellings were approved, and of those 36 were a development of a gap for two dwellings. If this past trend continued it would result in 202 further new houses by the end of the plan period, of which 72 could be large enough to accommodate two dwellings. As set out within Table 7.1 of Technical Supplement 3- Housing (DPS-118, page 25) 12% of the HGI is allocated to housing in the countryside. It is not the examiner’s role to consider the different approaches that could be taken to distribution of the strategic housing allocation such as affording a higher percentage to the countryside. Our task is to apply the soundness tests to the option that the Council have chosen to pursue. The rural allocation between 2012 and 2030 aims to deliver a 6.2% decrease on the 2011 position. We therefore agree that the tightening of the regional policy is justified based on the local circumstances supported by the evidence base. By balancing the number of resulting approvals Policy HOU13 is consistent with SGS1 Spatial Growth Strategy objective to facilitate sustainable development in the open countryside, balancing the need to protect the environment and rural character and the SGS3 Strategic Allocation of Housing to Settlements, in particular the allocation to the countryside. This approach satisfies soundness tests CE1 and CE2. 12.45 Policy HOU14 Personal and Domestic Circumstances and Policy HOU15 Residential Caravans and Mobile Homes are sound as drafted. 12.46 Policy HOU16 Affordable Housing in the Countryside provides for a group of no more than 14 dwellings adjacent to a village or no more than eight dwellings adjacent to a small settlement. While the scale of small settlement is not defined in the SPPS it is defined in Policy CTY5 of PPS 21 at paragraph 5.26 which states refers to having a population of 2250 or less. As none of the lowest two tiers in the settlement hierarchy in the plan area exceed this population level the applicable thresholds are consistent with the objectives of regional policy. Technical Supplement 3-Housing (DPS-118) paragraphs 7.74 and 7.75 refer to the analysis against the current policy context which determined that an increase of 14 dwellings, while suitable for villages could be significantly out of proportion with some of the smaller settlements in terms of character and service overload. We find the approach taken supports the selected thresholds and consistent with the strategic growth strategy. Policy HOU16 satisfies soundness tests C3 and CE1. 12.47 PM-106 is needed to accurately recognise the role of the NIHE can have in submitting applications for affordable housing in the countryside. PM-107 seeks an associated change at paragraph 8.1.76. The NIHE supported the changes in the updated responses from consultees LDP2021/MEA/PS

(DPS-310) hence both are necessary for a coherent approach to satisfy soundness test CE1. This is RA080. 12.48 CS5 Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty provides the requisite guidance specific to the AONB. Paragraph 5.9.37 refers to the Antrim Coast and Glens Design Guide (DPS-608) and matters related to vernacular characteristics and materials are detailed therein. Siting and design considerations are also provided within Policy GP1 criterion f). Superfluous references to the AONB throughout the rural housing policies are not required to satisfy soundness. The plan is read in the round. 12.49 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 151-169 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the suite of housing policies in settlements and the countryside. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of the Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA70-RA80 that the strategic approach set out to protect and provide for housing in settlements and the countryside. Open Space, Sport, and Leisure 12.50 The SPPS presumption against the loss of open space to competing land uses in LDPs irrespective of its physical condition and appearance (paragraph 6.205), has been incorporated within Policy OSL1 Protection of Open Space. Technical Supplement 4-Open Space, Sport, and Leisure (DPS-120) includes an assessment of the quantity of existing open space provision and shortfall based on the FIT six Acre Standard needs. It builds on Topic Paper 6- Open Space & Recreation (DPS-519) which provided the initial evidence base and identifies key issues to be addressed in the POP process. The Mid and East Antrim Borough Council Out to Play Strategy 2020-2024 (DPS-605) provides a strategic framework for the development of all types of play for a five year period. It contains a play pledge and action plan with 4 themes. The Council has had regard to other strategies relating to its district in respect of open space. Soundness test C4 is satisfied. The information included broadly accords with paragraphs 6.204 and 6.209 of the SPPS. It represents a coherent and effective approach that is founded on a robust evidence base in accordance with soundness test CE2. 12.51 Policy OSL1 includes two exceptions a) and b). Exception a) is that redevelopment will bring substantial community benefits that decisively outweigh the loss of open space. The inclusion of affordable housing as a recognised means to demonstrate substantial community benefit is not a matter specific to the plan area; it should be discussed as part of a regional agreement. Consideration of site-specific issues including those related to lands currently zoned as passive open space cannot be considered for part housing and industrial/economic use at this stage of the LDP. All site-specific matters in relation to the location of open space in the plan area should be appropriate considered in the LPP stage of the process. The policy, as worded, provides flexibility for sites where it is demonstrated their loss would have no significant detrimental impact on amenity, character, or biodiversity of an area when two circumstances occur. In all the Policy OS1 as worded is sound. 12.52 Policy OSL2 Greenways will facilitate their delivery and protect the routes from development that could prejudice their retention, enhancement, or further development. This relates to the LDP2021/MEA/PS

two tiers of greenways, regional and local identified at SGS9. The six routes across the primary and secondary greenway network routes are identified on the DPS Proposals Maps 1-3 (DPS102, DP-103 and DPS-104). Combined with other strategies such as the Council Cycling Routes Masterplan (DPS-606) they will inform the designation of the detailed community greenway routes during the LPP stage of the process. Consideration of the Ulster Way, the coastal route, the potential for new walking routes or cycle dock facilities will be considered at that time; the two-tier approach as detailed in the dPS provides reasonable flexibility for delivery if circumstances change. Paragraph 8.2.6 states that those proposals involving amendments to an identified route may be acceptable, provided that the alternative arrangements maintain the overall integrity of the route. Extant permissions for other forms of development would be taken account of at the LPP stage of the process limiting the potential for them to stifle development. Greenways that run through AONBs do not require enhanced recognition as the AONB objectives are multi-functional and not just recreation based. 12.53 Policy OSL2 cross refers to the need to meet the General Policy and other provisions of the LDP. Delivery of greenways can assist in creating attractive linkages overlapping with the transport strategy and Policy TR4 Disused Transport Routes. A heritage led approach for discussed transport corridors or rail beds could be considered alongside the other provisions of the LDP including the policies for the historic environment, recreation, nature conservation or tourism related uses. In addition, Policy GP1 criterion d) ii. requires design to facilitate opportunities for active and passive recreation for everyone, both within and where possible, beyond the site. There is a sufficient mechanism in place to facilitate delivery of greenways in accordance with soundness test CE3. Policy OSL2 is sound as written. 12.54 New sections of open space that link into existing greenways would also find support within Policy OSL3, New Open Space Provision which seeks to ensure that new open space is well located regarding accessibility. Policy OSL3 is sound as written. 12.55 Policy OSL4 Public Open Space in New Residential Development requires that all development proposals of 25 or more units, or on sites of one hectare include appropriate provision for open space. Criterion a) relates to the proportion of site area to be delivered as public open space setting a normal expectation of at least 10% of the total site area or 15% where the site is 10 hectares or more. This is 5ha lower than the requirement of Planning Policy Statement 8: Open Space, Sport, and Outdoor Recreation (PPS 8) whereas Policy OS2 which requires 15% at 300 units or 15 hectares or more. The SPPS at paragraph 6.206 is more flexible in such provisions than that prescribed in PPS 8. The SPPS requires that councils bring forward policy to require new residential development to provide adequate and well-designed open space as an integral part of development. It does not refer to the proportion of open space within residential sites once the provision of open space is required. 12.56 The POP (DPS-501) contained three preferred options based on the regional thresholds for open space provision within residential developments at key issue 19 (page 150). Preferred Options Paper Public Consultation Report (DPS-506) sets out the review of the regional policy and consultee comments. The consideration of the responses to the POP is within the Report titled how the POP Representations were taken account of in the Draft Plan Strategy (Page 29, DPS-507). Technical Supplement 4: Open Space, Sport, and Leisure (DPS-120) at paragraphs 6.2 & 6.3 details how the POP recommendations generally having been brought forward to the dPS with minor amendments. The justification for deviation from the PPS 8 threshold is LDP2021/MEA/PS

that the size of residential applications in the plan area are generally well below 300 units. While the selected option was not one of the three preferred options it is not necessary for soundness test P2 that the POP preferred options are the only options the dPS can arrive at. All representations made to the POP were considered therefore soundness test P2 is satisfied. 12.57 We were advised at the IE hearing session that since 2010 there have been only three residential approvals on sites greater than 10h within their Council area. The Strategic Environmental Appraisal (DPS-106A) assesses the option of bringing forward PPS 8 policies OS1 and OS2 with minor amendments and new directional policy. It includes open space provision based on the dPS option of 15% over 10h with minor and positive impacts. The pattern of limited scale residential proposals leads us to conclude that the regional thresholds would rarely have been triggered by applications. In accordance with soundness test CE2 the evidence base demonstrates that the PPS 8 context was not appropriate to achieve the open space provisions for the plan area. 12.58 Lowering the threshold to a scale more reflective of the local development management experience strikes an appropriate balance between the impact on delivery and supporting the development of good quality open space which makes the plan area an attractive and healthier place to live. On this basis, the thresholds set within criterion a) have taken account of regional policy and soundness test C3 is not offended. 12.59 Matters such as viability of schemes and details of development constraints, which could include topography or access issues, built heritage, ecological and environmental sensitivities or contamination issues can be taken account of as the specific characteristics of the development. Policy OSL4 is a realistic and appropriate approach in respect of these considerations. Management and maintenance arrangements for open space within residential developments are set out within the policy headnote, paragraphs 8.2.17 and 8.2.19 of the justification and amplifications. Service charges for maintenance are outside of the remit of the policy provisions in the LDP. 12.60 Paragraph 8.2.16 of the dPS refers to ‘occasions where the provision of open space can only be facilitated by an applicant entering into a Planning Agreement under Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011’. Funding of greenways and open space can be delivered as part of housing masterplans. Paragraph 8.2.16 and Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) page 172 refer a guidance framework on planning agreements and developer contributions being developed for the plan area in the future. 12.61 Paragraph 3.1 of DPS-402 refers to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). It states ‘Consultation on SPG will be carried out in a proportionate manner where it is considered by the Council to be beneficial to give additional regard to the opinions of stakeholders and the local community. The Council’s Planning Committee will be consulted on development of the guidance, including any comments received. It is not a statutory requirement for SPG to be considered through the public examination process’. As the developer contribution text is clarificatory detail related to delivery and not a policy requirement the position within the justification and amplification is sufficient to satisfy soundness test CE3. 12.62 Paragraph 8.2.20 and 8.2.21 of the dPS allows for an alternative approach to open space delivery than those outlined in the policy. The mechanism is therefore in place for the LDP2021/MEA/PS

consideration of alternatives. The policy as drafted is reasonably flexible for changing circumstances to satisfy soundness test CE4. 12.63 A requirement for the use of species would be overly prescriptive and unrealistic. The Policy OSL4 achieves a balance between the delivery of housing and the provision of public open space to comply with sustainability objectives of the dPS and soundness test CE1. 12.64 Policy OSL4 does not provide a specific definition for “an unobstructed access” as stated at criterion b). Its interpretation is a characteristic of the development proposal relative to a specific site including any barriers to access. Therefore, this lack of definition does not render the policy unsound. 12.65 The ‘Home Zone’ concept’ contained in the fourth bullet point of criterion (iii) of PPS 8 Policy OS2 has not been replicated within Policy OSL4. The Council advised the examination of historical applications shows there is no demand in the plan area to justify the inclusion of ‘Home Zones’ as an exception to the policy. We have no evidence to contradict this position of the local circumstances and we are satisfied that no issues of soundness arise in this regard. 12.66 Policy OSL4 proposes, after the adoption of the LPP, to remove the exception for an equipped play space to be provided in residential developments of 100 units or development sites of 5ha if an equipped children’s play area exists within reasonable walking distance (generally 400m) of most units. Sites of a size that require play parks will be zoned within the LPP. Consideration of whether equipped play space is required within the context of key site requirements is a sensible approach given potential proximity of existing play parks. The wording fills the gap period and no conflict with regional policy arises. 12.67 Equality of access for the mobility impaired should therefore be considered by development management as part of the design of public open space provision. While Policy GP1 criterion c) would provide the necessary context for movement patterns it would not require the consideration of how people with mobility impairments use the new open space. Paragraph 6.199 of the SPPS refers not only to people with disabilities having easy access to open space but also the opportunity to participate in sport and outdoor recreational activity. Notwithstanding the role of the Council parks officer in the development management process, it would be more fitting in the plan led system (as per paragraph 5.7 of the SPPS) that this expectation is set out within Policy OSL4. RA081 is the addition to the bullet iii) to provide for people whose mobility is impaired. Subject to RA081 Policy OSL4 is sound as written. 12.68 OSL5 Sport and Outdoor Recreation Facilities seeks to support the delivery of sport and recreation facilities. PM-108, PM-109 and PM-110 seek to introduce specific reference to Policy NAT1. PM-113 inserts an additional paragraph into the justification and amplification prior to paragraph 8.2.22 of the dPS. This reflects how the geographical context could result in any sport or outdoor recreation development that could impact directly or indirectly on a European Designated site having to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Regulation 43. There is no need to refer to Policy NAT1 in each of the six elements of Policy OSL5 as the plan should be read in line with the other provisions of the LDP. The reader is adequately alerted to the parallel requirements related to the nature conservation designations including the coastal obligations through PM-113. RA082 is necessary for consistency and soundness test CE1. LDP2021/MEA/PS

100

12.69 Policy OSL5 largely contains the provisions of Policy OS6 Development of Facilities ancillary to Water Sports of PPS 8. PM-111 includes the reference to inland water sports within the policy section title. Given the policy relates to only to inland lakes, reservoirs, and waterways it is required for internal consistency in accordance with soundness test CE1. RA083 is therefore required. 12.70 Coastal recreation is considered within the paragraphs dealing with Sport and Outdoor Recreation in Settlements (first paragraph) and in the Countryside (second paragraph). CS2 Special Countryside Areas and CS6 Developed Coast (Belfast Lough Shore) also ensure there is no policy lacuna for water sport proposals along the coast. No change is required to the wording of policy in this regard. The provisions within Criterion c) for development of Facilities ancillary to Inland Water Sports are consistent with PPS 8 Policy OS6 criterion vii) in requiring that there is no conflict with the provisions of any local management plan. No issues arise in respect of soundness test C3. 12.71 The section on the Floodlighting of Sports and Outdoor Recreational Facilities cross refers to Policy GP1 which provides for the protection of the amenity of existing residents. PM-112 adds ‘to accord with other provisions of the LDP’. As this is consistent with the approach taken throughout the plan is required for internal consistency and soundness test CE1. Subject to RA084 Policy OSL5 is sound. 12.72 Policy OSL6 Community Growing Spaces and Allotments provides for spaces for growing food. It does not require merger with other policies to meet soundness test CE3. Policy OSL6 is sound as written. 12.73 Policy OSL7 Cemeteries and Burial Space contains specific criteria in respect of the local water environment and groundwater. That is due to potential environmental matters that do not arise within other open space policies. Technical Supplement 4 - Open Space, Sport, and Outdoor recreation (DPS-120 paragraph 2.38) highlights that new cemetery space is an area of future cross-boundary working given the current capacity issues in Mid and East Antrim. The approach of providing a separate policy for this type of use is consistent with soundness test CE3 and has had regard to the plans in adjoining Council areas. Archaeological sensitivities around foundations on ancient or church sites is encompassed within the justification and amplification requirement to consider any potential impact on the environment at paragraph 8.2.42. Policy OSL7 is sound as written. 12.74 Matters around designing out crime cross cuts with other policies that provide guidance on quality development including those that relate to the built environment, Policies GP1, HOU1 & Appendix D. No revisions are necessary to satisfy soundness test CE3. 12.75 Paragraph 5.8.1 refers to open space contributing positively to the attractiveness and vitality of the marine environment. Section 2 of this report considers how regard has been had to the UK MPS and Draft Marine Plan for NI in the regional policy context at paragraphs 2.1.12 and 2.1.13. Soundness test C4 does not require that they are specifically drawn out within the open space policies.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

101

12.76 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 170-180 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the suite of open space policies. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the Schedule of the Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA081-RA084 that the strategic approach set out to protect and provide for open space is sound. Education, Health, Community and Cultural Facilities 12.77 Provision for developer contributions or other provisions to fund sustainable community infrastructure, subject to meeting the associated legal tests for delivery is set out within the dPS. Site specific representations which highlight that land is suitable for mixed use development with appropriate complimentary community facilities are matters for the LPP. Technical Supplement 11-Heath, Education, Community and Cultural Facilities (DPS-139) contains sites or proposals which are subject to approval of capital allocation by the Department of Health which determines capital allocation regionally. Those sites referred to would be reviewed during the LPP stage of the process to ensure the evidence base remains accurate to satisfy soundness test CE2. Policy COM1 Education, Health, Community and Cultural Facilities is sound as written.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

102

13.0 Transportation, Infrastructure and Connectivity 13.1

The RDS at Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 describes the four strategic projects which will contribute to economic infrastructure development. Strategic improvements in transport is one. Detail of the Transport Strategy is set out at section 7 of this report. Policies TR1 Access to Public Roads, TR2 Access to Protected Routes and TR3 New Transport Schemes are aimed at addressing the objectives of improving connectivity and supporting infrastructure. Policies TR4 Disused Transport Routes, TR5 Active Travel, TR6 Parking and Servicing and TR7 Provision of Car Parks promotes the use of more sustainable modes of transport and active travel modes. These will be key to delivering future modal shift and discouraging the adverse impacts of commuting by single occupancy vehicles. Policy GP1 The General Policy for All Development also contains policy related to Access, Movement and Car Parking with further detail at paragraphs 6.1.5 to 6.1.9 of the dPS. This approach assists with the integration of transport services and new development however, the specific allocations at the LPP stage of the process will be the mechanism to achieve sustainable locations well integrated with transport.

13.2

Policy TR1 Access to Public Roads makes provision for proposals involving direct access, or the modification of the use of an existing access, on to a public road. The Council confirmed at the IE hearing sessions that they have had regard to the DfI ‘Guidance on Accessibility Analyses and Planning Policies for Transport - 2019’ as directed by Planning Policy Statement 13 Transportation and Land Use (PPS13). We were advised there was little substantive difference between this document and the June 2021 version and we are satisfied that the evidence base is not deficient in respect of that guidance. Accessibility access maps for the three main towns are available within Technical Supplement 9 - Transportation (DPS-130 Appendix C). It would be disproportionate to require a travel time accessibility assessment for all proposals and in the two-tier LDP process, it would be expected that more detailed analysis of transport implications associated with specific sites will be carried out at the LPP stage. Considering soundness test C4 the dPS has had regard this guidance.

13.3

Where development proposals are likely to give rise to significant travel-generating uses, it is normal practice that DfI Roads as a statutory consultee can make an assessment and if required, can request the submission of a transport assessment to evaluate transport implications. In the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142 page 183) the Council accepts that a transport assessment would be required for development which generates significant travel movements. As previously set out in the discussion on GP1 General Policy for all Development Criterion c) contains sufficient provisions for the submission of Transport Assessments. There is no need to duplicate its provisions within Policy TR1 or within Policies TR5, TR6 and TR7. The dPS is coherent in respect of the circumstances in which a Transport Assessment is required. Policy TR1, as worded, is sound.

13.4

Policy TR2 Access to Protected Routes restricts the number of new direct accesses and controls the level of intensification of existing accesses onto protected routes. The policy takes account of existing regional policy. Therefore, as drafted Policy TR2 is sound.

13.5

The delivery of new non-strategic road schemes as previously discussed in the context of the transport strategy is also applicable to Policy TR3 New Transport Schemes. Criterion a) seeks to deliver transport schemes identified in the LDP or the Local Transport Plan. Technical Supplement 9-Local Transport Study (DPS-131) is a source of preparatory work and will feed

LDP2021/MEA/PS

103

into the Local Transport Plan and the LPP when more detail is available on the feasibility of improvements and costs of roads scheme. 13.6

Paragraph 9.1.26 of the dPS refers to the requirements for delivery of road schemes which ‘will be agreed between the Council and the applicant on a case-by-case basis until such times as a formal developer contribution framework may be published by the Council’. Representors argue this presents a level of uncertainty and is inconsistent with the approach required for the plan led system. The Council confirmed at the hearing sessions of the IE that they intend to progress with this with a developer contribution framework applicable to the plan area and during the lifetime of the plan. The Council indicated that this approach has been accepted for another Council at IE. It is important to note in the plan making process what is accepted in another IE for a Council area may not always be replicated in another Council. The evidence presented in each Council may differ and relate to the local circumstances in that area. However, the Council did advise that the developer contribution framework would be subject to public consultation and normal governance procedures applicable to making supplementary guidance for the policies in the LDP including consideration by the Planning Committee and full Council thus, providing further opportunity for scrutiny by its members and the public. Therefore, when adopted as Council policy, the Developer Framework will provide supplementary planning guidance to the PS.

13.7

We consider a developer contribution framework will provide certainty in respect of what is to be expected when implementing Policy TR3. Section 6 of Development Management Practice Note 21: “Section 76 Planning Agreements” (DMPN 21) does not prescribe when such associated guidance should be published. The timing within the LDP process is for the Council to determine in accordance with soundness test CE3. Notwithstanding, we consider the wording of paragraph 9.1.26 should be amended to reflect the commitment of Council to prepare such a Developer Contribution Framework to assist with the delivery of the LDP. This is RA085 to ensure commitment to delivery of a developer Contribution Framework during the lifetime of the plan is reasonably flexible to deal with changing circumstances.

13.8

No issues arise within Policy TR4 Disused Transport Routes. The policy is sound as drafted.

13.9

Policy TR5 Active Travel makes provision for pedestrians and cyclists within new development proposals in urban areas. Public safety within industrial areas can be sufficiently addressed through public access KSRs as part of the LPP stage of the process. While traffic free routes are not specifically referred to, the approach taken provides a flexible means to shift to more sustainable travel modes. Policy GP1 criterion c) relating to Access/Movement Parking ii) and Policy OSL2 Greenways provide further support for active travel objectives. The Cycling Routes Masterplan (DPS-606) prepared by SUSTRANS includes detail on access to the National Cycle Network (NCN) and cycle provision within the main towns including Larne as set out at pages 32-46. Soundness test C4 does not require specific reference to the detail of this document beyond that at paragraph 3.6.2 of the dPS, specific cycling or walking routes or connections within individual towns. Policy TR5 has taken account of paragraph 6.300 of the SPPS and satisfies soundness test C3.

13.10 Paragraph 6.301 of the SPPS lists car parking as one of the issues to be addressed in the LDP. Policy TR6 Parking and Servicing provides flexibility and discretion in applying published car parking standards taking account of the specific characteristics of a development and its LDP2021/MEA/PS

104

location. Inconsistencies are alleged with existing operational policy contained in PPS 3 Access Movement and Parking, Policy AMP7 Area of Parking Restraint (APR). The designation of APRs is one mechanism to promote modal shift. Only Carrickfergus town centre was proposed as an APR in draft BMAP. Its appropriateness was considered as key issue 21 in the Preferred Options Paper (DPS-501). Given the responses were evenly balanced at 45% for and against member workshops focused on quantifiable measures of success and potential effects of APR’s on town centre trade. After consultation with the DfI, the Council considered the combined effect of Policy TR5 Active Travel and the aspects of Policy TR6 which promote reduced car parking provision to be more appropriate than APRs. Soundness test P2 is satisfied. 13.11 Criterion b) of Policy TR6 provides for a reduced level of car parking provision in highly accessible locations well served by public transport. Paragraph 9.1.34 is clear that ‘a highly accessible location’ covers town centres and other areas where alternative modes of transport exist. Criterion e) provides for a reduced level of car parking provision where the exercise of flexibility would assist Council in securing broader planning gain and public benefit would outweigh the reduced level of parking. Paragraph 9.1.35 of the justification and amplification text of Policy TR6 in the dPS providing for better quality development or appropriate design in conservation areas is an example of broader planning gain. Further examples or an explanation of its meaning would limit the flexibility that its inclusion provides for. The wording is clear that both tests relating to broader planning gain and public benefit should be met. Car parking provision for development types will be assessed on the site-specific merits of a scheme and its location. Combined the criteria provide for the same circumstances as an APR and the Policy TR6 has taken account of regional policy. Soundness test C3 is satisfied. 13.12 There is no need to define ‘spare capacity available in nearby public car parks’ (Criterion c); ‘nearby’ is a relative term dependant on the proposal with distance assessed as part of the specific characteristics during the development management process. Viability considerations including specifics of the developments, site hazards or housing tenures car all be considered as part of the specific characteristics of the development. Criteria a) to e) of Policy TR6 provide sufficient flexibility in accordance with the coherence and effectiveness tests. This approach does not need to go any further as it takes account of the regional strategic objectives and the issues that the SPPS indicates at paragraph 6.301, bullet 6, should be included in an LDP. 13.13 Regional Policy in AMP7 (of PPS3) provides for car parking in excess of the Department’s published standards, or which exceed a reduction provided for in a development plan only in exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 9.1.37 of the dPS provides for this scenario subject to the applicant demonstrating exceptional circumstances in balance with paragraph 9.1.33 of the dPS and ensuring that car parking should not incentivise the use of the car over more sustainable modes of transport. The absence of a specific provision for parking in excess of standard does not result in failure of soundness test C3. 13.14 PM-114 seeks to align the footnotes for Policy TR6 to that at footnote 23 for Policy GP1 The General Policy for all Development on page 115. The change sought is to ‘Parking Standards’ (DOE 2005) or as updated. Given the potential for future revisions to standards including the appropriate proportions of disabled spaces, electric charging, or cycle spaces the approach provides reasonable flexibility for soundness test CE4. RA086 incorporates PM-114 to refer to

LDP2021/MEA/PS

105

all footnotes related to car parking standards including at footnote 23 (Policy GP1), 36 (Policy TR5) and 38 (Policy TR6). 13.15 PM-115 removes the references in paragraph 9.1.40 to DCAN11. As it has been withdrawn it is RA087 to comply with extant regional guidance in line with soundness test C3. 13.16 Policy TR7 Provision of Car Parks Criterion c) requires that a car park proposal includes a high standard of design, layout, and landscaping. This has taken account of the good design and positive placemaking core planning principle of the SPPS. The dPS recognises that the supply of adequate public parking facilities allows towns to compete with out of centre developments and the other challenges facing the High Street. We agree that PM-116 is needed for logical flow to refer to General Policy for all Development (Policy GP1) and accord with other provisions of the LDP. While paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS requires that all relevant policies will be read in the round, the approach of cross referring has been taken elsewhere and is necessary for coherence in light of soundness test CE1. This is RA088 and is necessary to satisfy the tests of soundness. 13.17 The tourism and coach industry are vital to both sustaining and growing the Northern Ireland economy and attracting further visitors. Specific provision for coaches is not required for coherence with the dPS objectives in respect of tourism growth, it can be provided for within the suits of policies set out in the dPS. 13.18 MEAM32 was presented by the Council at the hearing sessions to provide for a change to criterion a) to allow for car park sites not identified in the Local Transport Plan to be permitted. The introduction of by agreement with DFI was added for assessment of a ‘robust analysis provided by the applicant’. This introduces reasonable flexibility to satisfy soundness test CE4 and deal with changing circumstances over the lifetime of the LDP. The last sentence of paragraph 9.1.41 in the justification and amplification is also amended to reflect this policy wording amendment. RA089 is required to satisfy the tests of soundness. 13.19 In the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 183-191 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the suite of transportation policies. With the benefit of clarification from discussion at the public hearing we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA085-RA089 that the strategic approach set for transportation policies TR1-TR7 is sound. Flood Risk and Drainage 13.20 The SPPS is the most recent expression of flood risk policy and advocates a precautionary approach to flooding; the main references are at paragraphs 3.3, 3.13, 6.42 and 6.99-6.132. As already noted, we have accepted that the dPS did not require any updating as a consequence of the Climate Change Act which achieved royal assent on 6th June 2022, after the time when the dPS was published. Section 16 (1) places the DfI under a duty to achieve sectorial plans. It states, “The Department for Infrastructure must develop and publish sectoral plans for the infrastructure sector setting out how the sector will contribute to the achievements of the targets set out in sections 1, 3 and 4 of the Act”. Section 16 (2) states they LDP2021/MEA/PS

106

must contain proposals and policies for planning and construction. The LDP procedures allow for the dPS flood related policies to be reviewed as a consequence of any of this emerging work by the DfI. Therefore, any changes to the wording of policy can be implemented in any monitor and review of the LDP. 13.21 In furthering sustainable development, the RDS at RG9 and the SPPS emphasise the need to avoid, where possible, the selection of flood prone land for employment and housing growth. Paragraph 9.2.3 of the dPS refers to Ballymena and Carrickfergus to be at significant risk of flooding. References to Strategic Flood Maps within the dPS at paragraph 9.2.10 should be changed to the DfI Flood Maps NI as they are now known to satisfy soundness test CE3. Paragraph 5.2.24 of the Technical Supplement 12 – Public Utilities (DPS-140) states ‘within the Mid and East Antrim Council area, Larne, Carrickfergus, Ballymena and Ahoghill have all been classified as flood risk areas’. As seen in Table 5.3, these are ranked by Annual Average Damages (AAAD) value – the theoretical average economic damage caused by flooding. Table 5.3 includes twelve Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk. ‘Significant’ in this context equates to over £1m worth of damage. Three areas are in the plan area (Ballymena, Larne, and Carrickfergus), Greenisland is covered within the Newtownabbey area. In respect of Ahoghill, it’s level of flood risk is not categorised as ‘significant’. MEAM33 was submitted by the Council at the hearing sessions to amend paragraph 9.2.3 of the dPS to reflect the contents of table 5.3 of Technical Supplement 12: Public Utilities (DPS-140). RA090 is required for a coherent approach across the documents in light of soundness test CE1. 13.22 The Strategic Settlement Evaluation Appendices (DPS-525) shows flooding is an aspect of the RDS Housing Evaluation framework environmental capacity test. In terms of the three main towns identified as areas of ‘Potential Significant Flood Risk’ much of their housing and employment allocation could come from commitments. A criteria-based approach is to be undertaken when selecting sites at LPP stage taking account of paragraphs 6.104 and 6.128 of the SPPS. We are satisfied flood risk has been considered in line with soundness test CE2. 13.23 Policy FRD1 Development within Floodplains seeks to ensure that development within the floodplains of rivers or the sea is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. It takes account of paragraph 6.107 of the SPPS and Policy FLD 1 in PPS 15 (revised) Planning and Flood Risk which sets out exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 9.2.9 refers to the adoption of the precautionary approach and has taken account of regional policy as per soundness test C3. 13.24 Policy FRD2 Protection of Flood Defence and Drainage Infrastructure seeks to prevent any proposals which would impede the operational effectiveness of flood defence or drainage infrastructure. The discretionary nature of the 10m working strip for maintenance provides reasonable flexibility to satisfy soundness test CE4. 13.25 Policy FRD3 Management of Development in regard to Surface Water Flood Risk sets out the circumstances when a drainage assessment will be required. Account has been taken of regional policy within paragraphs 6.114 and 6.117 of the SPPS. This policy as drafted is sound. 13.26 Policy FRD4 Sustainable Drainage (SuDs) sets out the circumstances when SuDs measures will be required as part of development proposals. Paragraph 3.27 of the RDS in seeking to minimise development in areas at risk from flooding states that development should incorporate SuDs. The regional policy promotion in paragraph 6.118 of the SPPS refers to LDP2021/MEA/PS

107

planning authorities encouraging developers to use SuDs as the preferred drainage solution; it does not prescribe how that should take place. It is against the spirit of the plan led system that each case should be considered on a site specific basis. Paragraph 9.2.36 of the dPS refers to delivery through Policy FRD4 and key site requirements on specific zonings at LPP. 13.27 The Policy FRD4 headnote states that a sustainable drainage solution (hard or soft SuDS) for the management of surface water run off will be required for any development proposal that triggers the requirement for a Drainage Assessment (DA). The term “will be required” was the subject of different interpretation, some representors consider it exceeds the regional direction for the promotion of a SuDs first approach by enforcing their use. The Council considered the more imperative language than that in regional policy is easier to implement at development management stage. Paragraph 9.2.43 of the justification and amplification for Policy FRD4 allows for an exception to be applied where it is clearly demonstrated through the DA that the site is fundamentally unsuitable for a SuDS solution and supported by a suitable qualified engineer. The onus will be on the applicant/developer to demonstrate how SuDs have been considered. Viability with respect of the detailed costs of implementing SuDs within smaller housing developments can be considered in this context and appropriate measures incorporated into the design of the proposal. Policy FRD4 allows for reasonable flexibility to show how and if SuDs can be incorporated. We consider that this is a realistic and appropriate outworking of the regional approach in promoting a SuDs first approach and the Policy FRD4 is not unsound on the basis of soundness test CE3. The test of soundness test C3 is satisfied in respect of this policy. This approach also takes account of the RDS as per soundness test C1. 13.28 The General Policy for All Development (Policy GP1) Criterion e) iii. requires that the development shall utilise sustainable drainage systems, as the preferred drainage solution, where feasible and practicable to ensure that surface water run-off is managed in a sustainable way. This is a general surface water management policy in contrast to the approach in Policy FRD4 which introduces a specific requirement related to those proposals that trigger the need for a drainage assessment. When read in the context of the supporting justification and amplification the distinction is clear. Policy FRD4 logically flows with Policy GP1 and meets the soundness text CE1. 13.29 Paragraph 9.2.39 of the dPS states that ‘hard SuDS’ will be the preferred drainage solution for most developers. PM-117 removes text to regarding the NI Water adoption of hard SuDs and reflects the NIWater arrangements for adoption of a sewer or drain to ensure a clear mechanism for implementation. RA091 is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness in CE3. 13.30 Paragraph 9.2.42 of the J&A text states that an appropriate maintenance and management plan for SuDs will be required to be submitted with the Council. These measures will ensure the effective future operation of SuDs in perpetuity. While it was not disputed that there is a lack of current management companies in NI that take on the management and maintenance of SuDS we do not accept that this would be the case throughout the lifecycle of the LDP until 2030. Such a cost on the developer and potential onward cost for the end users is up for consideration as part of the viability argument provided for at paragraph 9.2.43. Policy FRD4 satisfies soundness tests CE3 and CE4 and is not unsound as a result.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

108

13.31 Policy FRD5 Artificial Modification of Watercourses has taken account of paragraph 6.124 of the SPPS in recognising that culverting can increase flood risk downstream and can damage and impair the landscape quality, ecological integrity, and biodiversity of watercourses. Sufficient detail is contained within paragraph 9.2.45 to show consideration of the impacts on specific species of marine life including the endangered native wild species such as Atlantic Salmon and European Eel. Applications for development affecting such species would be considered across the suite of natural heritage policies and the General Policy for All Development (Policy GP1) criterion e) iv. Policy FRD5 is sound as written. 13.32 Policy FRD6 Development in Proximity to Controlled Reservoirs provides for new development within the flood inundation area of a controlled reservoir where the condition, management and maintenance regime of the reservoir are appropriate to provide assurance regarding reservoir safety. As the number of controlled reservoirs is subject to fluctuation on a regular basis MEAM34 updates PM-118 to refer to the list on the DfI website. There is a need for an associated strike through of Appendix I Part C of the dPS to remove the list of controlled reservoirs to maintain reasonable flexibility to enable the policy to deal with changing circumstances as per soundness test CE4. RA092 is necessary to satisfy the tests of soundness. 13.33 PM-119 addresses a typographical error at paragraph 9.2.50 of the dPS replacing ‘ensure’ with ‘ensue’ to refer to the potential for downstream flooding which may ensue if the structure fails etc. It is a matter for DfI to direct the Council on minor typographical changes to the dPS. 13.34 Policy FRD6 exempts minor development from the tests for the potential flood inundation area of a controlled reservoir. The Council consider the information required for minor developments is overly onerous in terms of what they consider to be only a slight increased flood risk. Generally minor development would be an extension (with limited attraction of new users). We must consider the final position of the DfI Rivers Planning Advisory Unit regardless of initial responses. They request removal of the provision for minor development. Soundness test C3 does not require policy to mirror the language of paragraph 6.120 of the SPPS and PPS 15 Planning and Flood Risk Policy FRD5 Development in Proximity to Reservoirs. It requires that account is taken of it. The Policy FRD6 is not unsound on the basis that a change to regional policy is proposed provided it is justified by the evidence base. 13.35 Criterion a) of Policy FRD6 requires that an applicant can demonstrate the condition, management, and maintenance regime of the controlled reservoir. The list of controlled reservoirs as of June 2019 in Appendix I Part C list is now out of date (MEAM34 confirms its omission from the dPS document under RA092) however, it does assist with understanding the scale of reservoirs owned by NI Water. Of the remaining six, three are private and three Council owned. This gives an indication that only a proportion of the controlled reservoirs would be subject to criterion b) of Policy FRD6. The reservoirs assisted by the Council’s planned change would be mainly those applying for minor development in areas where the necessary assurances can be provided. On balance, we do not consider that the inclusion of the provision for minor development would significantly undermine the policy objectives in terms of protection of people and property within inundation zones. We are satisfied that sufficient account has been taken of the guidance issued by the DfI to satisfy soundness test C3. MEAM35 which was submitted on a without prejudice basis to incorporate changes requested by the DfI Rivers is not necessary.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

109

13.36 The removal of the references to applicant and the inclusion of the word ‘sufficient’ in respect of the assurances regarding reservoir safety in Policy FRD6 criterion a) have no impact on how the policy is read and are not required for soundness. 13.37 Technical Guidance Note (TGN25) Development in Proximity to Controlled Reservoirs Revised June 2020 was published after the dPS. Technical Supplement 12-Public Utilities (DPS-140) has regard to the earlier 2018 document. As supporting documents, the continual updating of technical supplements is not required for reasonable flexibility for changing circumstances. A website link in the J&A is not necessary as the TGN does not set out policy and is more relevant to the development management process. Policy FRD6 is sound as drafted. 13.38 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 192-197 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the flood risk and drainage. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA90RA92 that the strategic approach set out to protect the plan area from flood risk is sound. Renewable Energy 13.39 Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development, applies to all renewable energy developments including wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass. The headnote of Policy RE1 provides additional requirements for Wind Energy. Policy RE1 generally takes account of paragraph 6.217 of the SPPS. The policy aims to facilitate renewable energy development in appropriate locations whilst balancing recognised benefits against any potential environmental or social impacts (dPS paragraph 9.3.7). MEAM36 was submitted by the Council at the hearing sessions to supersede PM-120 and PM-121 and replace the last sentence in paragraph 9.3.1 to refer to the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Existing and future legislation, including the Climate Change Act or any future amendments would be a material consideration in the assessment of renewable energy development. The DfE Energy Strategy (2021) contains regional targets that relate to all forms of renewable energy. Additionally, the Climate Change (No.2) Bill introduced the target of 80% energy consumption from renewable sources by 2030. In due course it will lead to the production of plans which will include policies and proposals relating to planning and climate change. The DfI are also undertaking a Review of Strategic Planning Policy on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy to ensure the policy is reflective of the long term public interest. The draft revised policy document has not at the time of writing been released for full public consultation. Given the Council’s statutory duty to prepare a plan strategy under Section 8(1) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011, it is inappropriate for the Council to delay the progression of its dPS until the end of this review. The Council intend to review any implications, along with any relevant sectoral plans, under their plan review mechanism. MEAM36 is necessary as RA093 for reasonable flexibility for the renewable energy targets and achievement figures to change over the lifetime of the plan. 13.40 The Ministerial Foreword to the NI Executive’s Energy Strategy refers to “The Path to Net Zero’. The long term target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 relates to climate change which crosses energy and topics including, transport, natural environment and flood risk. MEAM36 directs the reader to the Department for Energy website; it would be expected that it would

LDP2021/MEA/PS

110

contain further information on the 2050 target. The dPS has had regard to the energy strategy and meets soundness test C4. 13.41 Paragraph 6.223 of the SPPS relates to renewable energy proposals within designated landscapes which are of significant value noting, it may be difficult to accommodate renewable energy proposals, including wind turbines, without detriment to the region’s cultural and natural heritage assets. PM-122 removes the reference to ‘outside of special countryside areas’ from Policy RE1. There is no regional presumption against renewable energy development in SCAs and it would be at odds with the strategic aims for decarbonisation of energy generation to retain such a presumption against renewable energy unless it was justified by the evidence base. That it is not the Councils intention to diverge from regional policy in this respect is evidenced by PM-122. The omission of ‘outside of special countryside areas’ from Policy RE1 is justified and would be consistent with the requirements of soundness tests C3 and C4. This is RA094. 13.42 It is explicit within paragraph 9.3.7 of the dPS that solar energy is within the scope of Policy RE1 alongside hydro, geothermal and biomass. These types of renewable energy are considered under criteria a) to h). PM-127 proposed deletion of: ▪

▪

The reference to the Policy GP1 General Policy for All Development and renewable energy development criteria which is superfluous to the same reference in the first paragraph of Policy RE1; and Large scale solar farms will not be permitted within the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB and Areas of Constraint on High Structures designated in the LDP. PM-128 is an associated change removing reference to solar energy infrastructure from paragraph 9.3.10. PM-129 removes the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB and the designated Area of Constraint on High Structures from within paragraph 9.3.14.

13.43 The reference to ‘large scale solar farms’ is deleted as policy should relate to all solar energy development irrespective of their scale. In effect, the proposed modifications, would result in solar energy proposals being considered in the context of Policy RE1 criteria a) to h) and the second paragraph of the policy headnote. This would be in addition to the provisions of Policy GP1 The General Policy for All Development Criteria a) and f) iv. which relate to the potential significant adverse impact on areas recognised for their exceptional landscape quality, landscape character, the rural character of the locality or environmental quality. This is a realistic and appropriate approach for the consideration of solar energy developments in the context of the dPS. 13.44 PM-122, PM-127, PM-128 and PM-129 enables the principle of renewable energy within all areas. Proposals within areas of significant landscape value would also have to comply with the strategic spatial proposals CS2, CS5 and CS3 in accordance with paragraph 6.223 of the SPPS. RA095 relates to the inclusion of PM-127, PM-128 are PM-129 into the headnote of Policy RE1. These PMs are required to have regard to the strategic aims for decarbonisation of energy generation within the Strategic Energy Framework considering soundness test C4. 13.45 The third paragraph of Policy RE1 specifies the weight to be given to a proposal’s economic, social, or environmental benefits is ‘appropriate weight’. No issues arise with soundness test

LDP2021/MEA/PS

111

C3 as account has been taken of the SPPS paragraph 6.225, this takes precedence over Policy RE1 of PPS 18. 13.46 In considering proposals for energy generation from renewable sources, the five criteria within paragraph 6.224 of the SPPS are generally replicated within Policy RE1 across criteria a) to h). PM-123 extends the requirements of criterion c) to seek to not unacceptably restricting public access to the countryside or recreational or tourist use of the area to include the coast. While the coast is not specifically mentioned in paragraph 6.224 of the SPPS or Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development of PPS 18 there is no requirement to replicate these provisions. The plan area has a significant coastline. The Council have considered local circumstances relating to the plan area with the inclusion of the coast. PM-123 is an acceptable addition to this policy wording. The strategic social objective f) (page 45 of dPS) states ‘To support, and where possible enhance, the recreation and leisure offer within Mid and East Antrim, including safeguarding and promoting access to the coast and to heritage assets’. As tourism is an economic priority of the council the protection of public access to the countryside logically flows in accordance with soundness test CE1. RA096 is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness. 13.47 PM-124 extends Policy RE1 criterion g) to reflect the reference to local natural resources found in paragraph 6.224 of the SPPS. This is RA097 and is necessary for soundness test C3. 13.48 PM-125 adds the wording ‘and their wider settings’ to the end of the first sentence in the second paragraph of Policy RE1. While representors consider this introduces additional control to the setting of distinctive landscape qualities it is reflective of paragraph 6.223 of the SPPS. As it also assists the consistency of the policy head note with the justification and amplification text stated at 9.3.10 of the dPS. RA098 is required to satisfy soundness tests C3 and CE1. 13.49 Policy RE1 criterion i) requires consideration of the cumulative impact of existing wind turbines, including extant permissions and undetermined applications. Paragraph 6.299 of the SPPS requires a cumulative impact to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Policy RE1 of Planning Policy Statement 18 Renewable Energy provides more detail in the matters to be assessed for wind energy in the context of a cumulative assessment. The approach set out in Policy RE1 takes account of existing departmental policy. The SA (DPS-106 Appendix 4) considers this issue and concludes there is no other reasonable alternative necessary to be considered as the policy option is consistent with the regional policy approach. The consideration of alternatives has been considered in this instance. It is not necessary that all alternatives should be considered only those that are reasonable. The concerns raised by representors does not undermine the evidence base in relation to this criterion of Policy RE1. 13.50 Policy RE1 Criterion l) requires a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to any occupied, temporarily unoccupied, or approved dwelling outside of the applicant’s control. PM-126 sought to amend this to relate to residential property (including extant permissions). Representations to the modification included concerns relating to the justification for the consideration of extant permissions; the exception for properties or permissions within the developer’s control; the minimum separation distance of 10 times the rotor diameter; and proposals should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

112

13.51 Regional policy at paragraph 6.227 of the SPPS, the penultimate paragraph of PPS 18 ‘Renewable Energy’ and paragraph 1.3.43 of the Best Practice Guidance to PPS 18 “Renewable Energy” (listed at paragraph 1.14 of the SPPS as one the planning documents that will continue to be treated as material considerations after the dPS is adopted) all read ‘For wind farm development a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied property (our emphasis), with a minimum distance not less than 500m, will generally apply’. Soundness test C3 does not require that regional policy is replicated however, where Councils depart this should be supported by the evidence base. The Council relied on the provisions of paragraph 6.218 of the SPPS to imply further restrictions relating to the siting of renewable energy development generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment. The Council also referred to paragraph 6.224 which refers to renewable resources not resulting in an unacceptable adverse impact on matters including residential amenity (in first bullet alongside public safety and human health). However, we note this paragraph 6.224 is not unique to wind energy development and applies to all forms of renewable energy. Policy RE1 criterion b) already applies the test of significant harm to the safety and amenity of sensitive receptors (including future occupants of committed developments) arising from noise, shadow flicker, ice throw or reflected light. Footnote 43 replicates the PPS 18 reference to sensitive receptors (defined as habitable residential accommodation (although not necessarily occupied), hospitals, schools, and churches. Reliance on this footnote appears to be at odds with the provision of criterion l) of Policy RE1. 13.52 Considering this issue, it is our view the identification of approved dwellings places an unreasonable expectation on the required evidence to be considered and submitted with wind energy development proposals. Often such applications take time to be considered due to the planning and environmental issues that can arise. Keeping up to date with the approval of dwellings in the countryside during the lifecycle of the planning process is overly onerous. Furthermore, issues such as the nature of the type of planning permission granted such as full planning permission or outline planning permission would place further technical assessment onto the developer and the planning authority at the commencement of the process and continually through the process such new approved dwellings arise. To require that approved dwellings, in addition to habitable buildings, is part of this assessment intended at criterion l) is unrealistic and inappropriate. Furthermore, is reduces effect of the policy to be reasonably flexible to enable it to deal which changing circumstances during the process. The wording is more onerous than that prescribed by the regional policy and guidance. Furthermore, we have not been persuaded by the evidence base to justify this layer of consideration in the context of criterion l) for wind energy development. 13.53 Regional policy refers to ‘occupation’. The reference to ‘outside of the applicant’s control’ within criterion l) relates to ownership which has no bearing on this requirement. It should be removed. 13.54 MEAM38 realigns the punctuation within criterion l) relating to the 10 times rotor diameter and the minimum 500m separation distance. By replicating that in regional policy it would make it unequivocally clear that there is flexibility to reduce to a 500m distance as necessary. RA099 amends criterion l) to relate only to any occupied or temporary occupied property and remove the reference to (excluding extant permissions) or approved dwellings outside of the applicant’s control. This is required to satisfy soundness test C3.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

113

13.55 To assess the separation distance on a case-by-case basis in the same manner as single turbines is not consistent with the objectives of the plan led system which should provide confidence and certainty for such proposals. 13.56 Proposals to re-power or re-equip existing wind turbines would entail largely the same material considerations as new installations albeit that different weight might be given to issues such as impact on landscape, built heritage or residential amenity given the existence of a turbine already. Paragraph 4.17 of retained Planning Policy Statement 18: “Renewable Energy” says that there are obvious advantages in utilising established sites but adds that such cases will have to be determined on their individual merit and in the light of the then prevailing policy and other relevant considerations. In addition to the detail within paragraph 9.3.18 of the dPS, MEAM39 by submitted at the hearing session and amends paragraph 5 of the headnote by adding the word ‘including’ to the reasons for reuse, refurbishment, or repowering. This extends the justification beyond ‘to extend its lifespan’ to support flexible innovation including research and development or emerging technologies. While the DfI referred to the lack of reference to repowering in regional policy they stopped short of considering its inclusion unsound as the Council considered it could be dealt with as part of the development management process. It introduces reasonable flexibility for soundness test CE4. It also contributes towards energy security. RA100 is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness. 13.57 PM-130 inserts an additional paragraph under 9.3.18 of the dPS. This provides a soft promotion of co-location with wind farms and other forms of energy generation and storage in recognition of the evolving nature of the industry. Given the potential for emerging renewable technology this increases flexibility over the lifetime of the plan and is therefore necessary for soundness test CE4. This is RA101. A final qualifying sentence at the end of PM130 is superfluous to the headnote which already requires that proposals will be subject to meeting the policy and any other relevant considerations. As co-located energy generation or storage should be considered in the design process it is not a definitive policy requirement and is not necessary for soundness that this detail is set out within the headnote of Policy RE1. 13.58 PM-131 adds the reference to as updated to the draft supplementary planning guidance at PPS18 Renewable Energy, Anaerobic Digestion at paragraph 9.3.19. Representors consider it is incorrect to reference future policy updates as the review and monitoring mechanisms will enable subsequent publications to be referenced. However, in this case the inclusion of ‘or as updated’ reflects the draft status of the document and DfI’s ongoing review of PPS18. RA102 is necessary to ensure reasonable flexibility for changing circumstances over the plan period. 13.59 Representors sought the addition of built and natural heritage interest to Policy RE1 Criterion a) of Policy RE1. Both SPPS paragraphs 6.219 and 6.224 refer to built heritage interests. Paragraph 6.224 of the SPPS bullet points the planning considerations for development that generate energy from renewable sources. Built heritage is included within the bullet points. Notwithstanding the policy provisions to protect built heritage to be coherent within Policy RE1 reference within criterion e), instead of criterion a), should include the words ‘built heritage’ to ensure full consideration of relevant planning considerations in the head note of Policy RE1. RA103 would take account of regional policy and is required to meet soundness test C3.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

114

13.60 Representors refer to the need to consider cumulative effects in line with paragraph 6.198 of the SPPS which states that planning authorities should ensure that the potential effects on landscape and natural heritage, including the cumulative effects of development, are considered. Landscape character is encompassed within criterion a) with nature conservation and biodiversity contained within criterion e). Both require consideration of cumulative impact however, only criterion i) refers to cumulative impact and it is restricted to wind energy development. The requirement to consider cumulative effect is encompassed within RA103 relating to criterion e) and e) of Policy RE1 to take account of regional policy at paragraph 6.198 of the SPPS. 13.61 For wind energy development there is a requirement that it should also meet the requirements of criteria a) to h) before consideration of criteria i) to l) and soundness test C3 does not necessitate their replication in the wind energy section of the policy headnote including an additional reference to number and size of turbines. 13.62 Policy RE1 Criterion f) requires that renewable energy developments avoid active peatland unless it is demonstrated that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. The SPPS paragraph 6.226 and PPS18 references to proposals ‘not being permitted’ on active peatland do not have to be replicated. We do not consider the word ‘avoid’ does not take account of the policy issued by the Department in accordance with soundness test C3. Combined with paragraph 9.3.17 of the dPS the terminology is not ambiguous, the dPS has taken account of the aims of regional policy in respect of this environmental asset. The combination with criterion e) above logically flows with the protection of natural heritage interests. 13.63 Policy RE1 criterion h) requires that proposals will not prejudice the operational effectiveness of existing or approved energy infrastructure. This relates to renewable energy proposals which would impede the ability to extend the energy infrastructure. As regional planning policy allows for work to the network to enable continuity of supply during the transition to carbon-free energy generation it has had regard to the aims the Strategic Energy Framework and is sound. 13.64 Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) impact on matters such as regional reliance on fossil fuels, a reduction of indigenous companies bills and increased competitiveness. These are a matter for consideration by the DfI as part of the regional emerging energy and renewables policy and are not something that is directly applicable to the formulation of the LDP. 13.65 The Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) pages 199-207 show that the Council has addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to renewable energy. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the counter objections, the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and representations to those modifications. Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA093-RA103 that the strategic approach set out for renewable energy is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

115

Telecommunications and Overhead Cables (Electricity Infrastructure) 13.66 RG3 of the RDS and the SPPS recognise that Northern Irelands core telecommunications network is first class but highlight that continued investment in infrastructure is vital to maintain a competitive advantage to enable strong economic growth. PM-136 provides clarificatory text at paragraph 9.4.13 of the dPS on future proofing for connections and upgrades and supporting ducting in new developments. It references Section 12 of Creating Places – Achieving Quality in Residential Developments for residential led proposals. The RDS at RG3 and paragraph 3.6 bullet 1, states that the inclusion of telecommunications ducts as part of proposed civil works programmes can also significantly lower the costs of network deployments. The SPPS design paragraph 4.24 and Planning Policy Statement 10: “Telecommunications” Annex A A2 also provide further support for future proofing telecommunications cables (and for other services). PM-136 takes account of the RDS and regional policy as per soundness tests C1 and C3. RA104 is necessary to satisfy these tests of soundness. There is sufficient flexibility for future roll outs of fibre telecoms. 13.67 The policy refers to sharing of existing masts, as confirmed by paragraph 9.4.12 this relates only to telecommunication masts or base stations. This approach satisfies soundness test C3 as it has taken account of paragraph 6.243 of the SPPS, as well as PPS 10 Policy TEL1. 13.68 The policy for telecommunications and energy infrastructure is found within different planning policy statements (PPSs) and there is merit in their separation into different policies within the dPS as it would have allowed for more succinct coverage. However, the combined policy does not lack coherence to the extent that it would result in failure of soundness test CE1. 13.69 Economic objective f) on page 45 seeks to support sustainable economic growth by facilitating the provision or upgrading of public utilities infrastructure including energy and telecommunications to meet economic and community needs. Overhead cables are only one aspect of energy infrastructure. Proposed Modification PM-132 amends Policy TOC1 Telecommunications Development and Overhead Cables to Policy TEI1 – Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure. PM-134 makes associated changes to the headnote. PM-137 expands on paragraph 9.4.14 of the justification and amplification to confirm the inclusion of poles, pylons, transmission sites, stations, and cables within the scope of the policy. The modifications are required to reflect the intention of Policy TEI1 in accordance with soundness test CE1. The title of section 9.4 should also be amended to reflect the revised policy title. RA105 to include PM-132, PM-134 and PM-137 into the policy head note is necessary to satisfy the test of soundness. 13.70 PM-133 removes the reference to ‘outside of special countryside areas’. The inclusion of a presumption against telecommunications development within SCAs as designated landscapes of significant value, would be inconsistent with paragraph 6.238 of the SPPS and paragraph 3.7 of the SPPS which sets out the need to address barriers to sustainable development including telecommunications and the electricity network. As Policy TEI1 however also covers electricity infrastructure PM-133 also requires consideration under that regional policy context. Paragraph 6.250 of the SPPS requires that any proposal for the development of new power lines will be considered having regard to the potential impact on amenity and should avoid areas of landscape sensitivity. While an AONB is referred to, the word ‘including’ indicates that other areas of landscape sensitivity may be applicable. However, the direction LDP2021/MEA/PS

116

‘should avoid’ is not an absolute prohibition on power lines within areas of landscape sensitivity. Proposals within SCAs would be more specifically controlled within the strategic spatial proposal CS2, Special Countryside Areas on page 93. 13.71 The same principle of consistency with regional policy applies in Areas of Constraint on High Structures (ACHS). PM-135 removes the three paragraphs that relate to ACHS from the headnote of Policy TEI1. The headnote requires that proposals must meet Policy GP1 The General Policy for All Development and accord with other provisions of the LDP. Notwithstanding the context of paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS, in the case of a mast or electricity pylon their height means they cannot usually be considered in isolation from assessment as a high structure. Proposals within the designated landscapes of the strategic spatial proposal CS3 will inevitably require consideration in that context. As there is a definitive relationship between the two policies a cross reference is required for a logical flow to satisfy test CE1. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 should be removed and additional paragraph at the end of the first sentence of the Policy TEI1 to refer to high structures. RA106 is required to demonstrate account has been given to the RDS at RG5 paragraph 3.8. Account has also been taken of regional policy to satisfy soundness test C3. 13.72 The RDS at RG5: Deliver a sustainable and secure energy supply includes the requirement to strengthen the grid and increase the electricity interconnection capacity to strengthen the linkages between transmission and distribution networks. Paragraphs 9.4.1. 9.4.2 and 9.4.14 of the dPS refer to the importance of investment in electricity infrastructure comprising new and upgraded infrastructure. This is coherent with economic objective f) as described at page 45 of the dPS. Policy TEI1 does not have the same provision for the reuse or refurbishment of electricity infrastructure as appears in Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development. Permitted development rights exist for statutory or other undertakers at Part 14, Class C of the Planning General Permitted Development Order 2011 however, some designated areas are excluded. On this basis, provision for repair and upgrading of existing electricity infrastructure is necessary to take account of the RDS, economic objective f) and Policy RE1. RA107 is required for soundness tests C1 and CE1. 13.73 Criterion a) of Policy TEI1 requires a need for the proposed development at that location. Telecommunication not spots can be considered in this context. Paragraphs 6.249 and 6.250 of the SPPS make specific reference to power lines. Policy PSU8 New Infrastructure of A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland (PSRNI) (page 110) contains a policy test of overriding regional or local requirement for the development and a thorough exploration of alternative sites. The statutory providers for power lines could present a clear need for the proposal during assessment by development management and would likely comply with criterion a) of Policy TEI1. Speculative development would have to set out a specific need as is the case under the current policy context. TEI1 Criterion a) has taken account of the regional policy context and satisfies soundness test C3. 13.74 Policy TEI1 Criterion b) is that the proposal minimises visual intrusion. This has taken account of paragraph 6.239 of the SPPS which requires assessment to ‘ensure that the visual and environmental impact of telecommunications and other utility providers is kept to a minimum’. It is unclear if the inclusion of the reference to other utilities relates to overhead

LDP2021/MEA/PS

117

lines (OHLs). However, it is notable that they are not referred to in the renewable energy section of the SPPS. 13.75 The PSRNI policy PSU11 Overhead cables states that the siting of electricity power lines and other overhead cables will be controlled in terms of the visual impact on the environment, with particular reference being given to designated areas of landscape or townscape value. When considering a development proposal for the siting of electricity power lines and other overhead cables, the lines should be planned to ensure the wirescape in urban areas is kept to a minimum with preference being given to undergrounding services where appropriate. Policy TEI1 states that ‘in urban areas applicants will also be required to demonstrate that it cannot provide it underground’. NIE Networks set out legal, financial, and technical issues that must be considered in providing electricity infrastructure for new development. Amongst other considerations, it has an obligation in accordance with the Electricity (NI) Order 1992 to offer the customer the “least cost, technically acceptable” solution for a new connection or alteration to the electricity network to facilitate development. NIE advised of examples of technical issues with undergrounding connections. 13.76 Undergrounding is in pursuit of the objective of minimising visual intrusion and Council state that while there is a slight difference in language in respect of OHLs, the dPS is not less flexible than regional policy. In plan making detailed criteria for matters related to visual integration such as siting and visual amenity are expected. In accordance with both the extant regional policy and Policy TEI1 applicants must demonstrate that undergrounding is not appropriate before an OHL is considered. However, while the evidential context (as required under soundness test CE2) lacks any cost benefit analysis or technical analysis for undergrounding the wording of Policy TEI1 allows for consideration of the facts of the case. A statement could be submitted at development management stage to demonstrate why the line cannot be provided underground including any viability, heritage, or biodiversity issues. There is reasonable flexibility to show the context of the statutory providers duty to provide a lower cost solution. This aspect has taken account of regional policy within the retained policy of the PRSNI and no changes are necessary to satisfy soundness test C3. 13.77 Paragraph 9.3.2 of the dPS refers to the plan area as “a key strategic location in relation to Northern Irelands energy network given the location of Kilroot and Ballylumford power stations in the borough”. Their context has been set out in the District Profile section of this report. Work to the networks to enable continuity of supply during the transition to carbonfree energy generation can be delivered within policies RE1, TEI1 and GP1. Policies relating to ‘Strategic Energy Infrastructure and Development’ and ‘Gas Infrastructure’ are not necessary to contribute towards a more diverse energy mix, but additional text should be added to the justification and amplification paragraph 9.4.14 to confirm proposals would be assessed against Policy TEI1. This is RA108 and is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE3. Both sites should be subject to specific policy direction at the LPP stage given the timeline for the decarbonisation of energy supply and the objectives of the Strategic Energy Framework. 13.78 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 205-208 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and representations LDP2021/MEA/PS

118

received. Taking account of all the evidence including discussion at the IE hearing sessions we are satisfied subject to RA104-RA108 that the strategic approach set out to delivery of telecommunications and energy infrastructure is sound. Water and Wastewater (Sewerage) Infrastructure 13.79 The RDS at RG12 promotes a more sustainable approach to the provision of water and wastewater services and anticipates there will be increased demands on water resources and wastewater disposal. It also states that LDPs should be informed by current water and wastewater infrastructure and future investment programmes. NI Water is the statutory body responsible for the delivery of and improvements to the sewerage infrastructure. Sustainable Water – a Long Term Water Strategy for Northern Ireland (2015-2040) states that LDPs should make provision for wastewater treatment facilities. The Council presented MEAM5 at the hearing sessions of the IE. RA003 provides an up-to-date context for WWTW and identifies issues within the Carrickfergus sewerage network system and wastewater treatment works specifically regarding discharges to Belfast Lough. Alongside paragraph 9.5.4 of the dPS this alerts the reader to identified WwTW capacity or pipe capacity issues. We accept that the Council have used the evidence base at their disposal and their ongoing liaisons with NI Water will ensure that any capacity issues are identified and addressed at an appropriate stage. Such constraints are not particular to the plan area. A significant portion of the housing allocation over the plan period are also likely to come from commitments. They should have previously been taken into account in the assessment of sewage capacity constraints and will be reviewed when allocating and zoning land at the LPP stage of the process when NI Water will be further consulted. 13.80 Policy WWI1 Development relying on Non-Mains Wastewater Infrastructure seeks to ensure that where proposals for new development need to rely on non mains wastewater infrastructure, either individually or cumulatively, they do not increase the risk of pollution. It provides for the timeframe pending the WWTW infrastructure capacity upgrades. This logically flows with the General Policy for All Development GP1) criterion e ii) which requires that essential infrastructure to facilitate the development must be available or, if lacking, there must be a firm commitment in regard to its timely provision. If the essential infrastructure is not available developers can provide the firm commitment of timely provision or solutions such as those set out at paragraph 9.5.10 of the dPS. Policy WWI1 has taken account of the RDS and is sound. Waste Management 13.81 RG10 of the RDS 2035 requires that we manage our waste sustainably. The regional policy direction is similarly to move towards a more sustainable waste management system and circular economy. The dPS is the vehicle for managing the land use implications of waste management policy. 13.82 Policy WMT1 – Environmental impact of a waste management facility applies to both new facilities and expansions to existing sites. While representors seek promotion of waste management facilities with renewable credentials it is unclear what is intended beyond the detail in paragraph 9.6.13 of the dPS. It confirms how the Council will be guided by the precautionary principle. Notwithstanding, Policy WMT1 cross references to the other LDP2021/MEA/PS

119

provisions of the LDP. Matters raised in respect of promotion of a secondary aggregates protocol overlap with those under the minerals section. Paragraph 9.6.15 of the dPS also confirms that the recycling of construction and demolition waste are to be considered under Policy WMT2 Waste Collection and Treatment Facilities. This provides for the greater use of recycled building rubble in construction as advocated in the Sustainable Development Strategy (paragraph 6.151 of the SPPS). 13.83 Paragraph 9.6.16 of the justification and amplification refers to anaerobic digestion proposals as waste treatment projects. This is has taken account of the regional policy context within the SPPS at paragraph 6.217, PPS 18, and PPS 11 Policy WM2. 13.84 Policy WMT3 Waste Disposal Sites relates to the development of landfill or land raising facilities for the disposal of waste. PM-138 amends paragraph 9.6.25 of the dPS to include reference to the natural environment and heritage assets. RA109 is required for coherence in terms of CE1 to replace the term environmental heritage asset which is ambiguous. 13.85 The term ‘derelict’ within Policy WMT3 criterion c) iii. and paragraph 9.6.24 of the dPS relating to landfilling has taken account of Planning Policy Statement 11: Planning and Waste Management, Policy WM3 and paragraph 8.14 of its justification and amplification. It is also used within paragraph 6.313 of the SPPS. There is no evidence to demonstrate it is not coherent without further definition when considering soundness test CE1. Combined these waste management policies have taken account of the RDS requirement for sustainable waste management and soundness test C1 is satisfied. 13.86 Criterion b) of Policy WMT4 Development in the Vicinity of a Waste Management Facility recognises that proximity to these facilities can impact adversely on people, transport, and the environment. PM-139 refers to the NIWater Development Encroachment – Order Assessment guidance. Whilst its requirements are relevant regardless of mention of it within the dPS, it is closely aligned with the objectives of criterion b) hence reference to it would provide a clear mechanism for its implementation. RA110 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE3. 13.87 Policy WMT 5 Land Improvement relates to the disposal of inert waste by deposition on land where it can be demonstrated that it will result in land improvement and accords with four criteria. Within the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at page 214 the Council refer to the SPPS being silent in respect of ‘land improvement’ however, it is referred to in PPS 11: Planning and Waste Management, Policy WM4. We agree that use of the term is not inconsistent with soundness test C3. Any potential negative impacts on the historic environment and landscape character can be resolved through compliance with Policy GP1 and the other provisions of the LDP. Policy WMT5 is sound as written. 13.88 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 209-214 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to water, wastewater infrastructure and waste management. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA109-RA110 that the strategic approach set out for development in the context of water and waste infrastructure is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

120

14.0 Stewardship of Our Built Environment and Creating Places Historic Environment 14.1

Policy HE1 Archaeological Remains and their Settings sets a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of archaeological remains of regional importance and their settings. It is not necessary for soundness that the four constituent parts are referenced a) to d); the titles are sufficient for identification purposes.

14.2

Scheduled monuments are of regional importance. Policy HE1 provides for development which would adversely affect these assets only in exceptional circumstances where the proposal is determined to be of overriding regional importance and there are no alternative solutions. Paragraph 10.1.11 of the dPS refers to taking into account the potential use of the archaeological remains for amenity, tourism and education purposes and weighing these against other factors, including the need for and the benefits of the proposed development. While provision is sought for sympathetic and appropriate new development any further flexibility on sites containing archaeological remains would run contrary the need to protect these historic sites in line with the regional policy context as set out at Paragraph 6.8 of the SPPS. No change to Policy HE1 is required to facilitate new development in these areas containing scheduled monuments of greatest archaeological importance.

14.3

The first two paragraphs of Policy HE1 state that a development proposal which would adversely affect Areas of Significant Archaeological Interest (ASAI’s) or the integrity of their settings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. ASAI’s are not a statutory designation. The plan is the mechanism by which they are designated as set out in the SPPS at the second bullet of paragraph 6.29. The approach in the dPS takes account of policy issued by the Department.

14.4

The dPS identifies a single ASAI within the plan area as described at paragraph 10.1.15. Knockdhu, is an upland area within the Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) as designated in the LAP 2010. Historic Environment Division of Department for Communities (HED) have identified a candidate extension area which incorporates additional land to the north and northeast.

14.5

Soundness test CE2 requires a robust evidence base. To assess if the necessary standard of evidence has been achieved it is necessary to understand the background to the ASAI designation. HED identified an extended boundary to that in the LAP to incorporate additional land at Scawt Hill and an area to the north and northeast. The extension area follows the historic townland boundary at the north and a historic abandoned routeway to the east. Within their response (CR009) HED included a list of the information considered from various sources as part of this process.

14.6

HED consulted the Historic Monuments Council (HMC), their statutory Advisory Body on 25 th July 2017 who found the evidential basis to be robust. With this endorsement of the candidate extension to the ASAI HED forwarded the Statement of Significance to the Council in February 2019. Giving due weight to the experience of HED, the Council included it at Appendix C of

LDP2021/MEA/PS

121

Technical Supplement 13-Built Environment and Creating Places (DPS-141 pages 36-44). This identifies the candidate extension area on the map on Page 43 in addition to the existing ASAI coloured turquoise. It includes a description of Knockdhu (including the extension area as confirmed by HED), a selection of aerial imagery and photographs of monuments. The tables displaying a list of the archaeological monuments currently recorded titled ‘Sites and Monuments Record within Beaghmore ASAI November 2018’ includes those SMR’s that are located within the candidate extension area (highlighted). Two are scheduled monuments. Imagery specific to the candidate extension area was also included with additional figures showing trackways noted in aerial photographs, and photographs from the 2017 site walkover. Technical Supplement 10-Countryside Assessment Appendix E – Candidate Sensitive Landscape Report (DPS-137) includes critical views. The significant landscape values (SLV) are included for each area including Glenarm Ridge (cSLA 04). The maps for LCA 123 is within Technical Supplement 10: Appendix G Maps (DPS-138). 14.7

While acknowledging there may be a case for the extension of the ASAI boundary in light of updated evidence and assessment practice, representors considered there is a lack of evidence to support the area that was selected. Among the specific criticisms of the evidence base are the lack of consideration of other areas which may warrant additional protection considering the selected area to stop 300m short to the east and omits neolithic house records to the west of the current ASAI. The lack of publicly available evidence including the known features recorded in the Northern Ireland SMR were discussed at the IE hearing sessions. Alleged shortfalls in the Statement of Significance included the absence of a visual assessment incorporating key views, landscape merits and features leading to uncertainty during the required policy assessment.

14.8

The shortcomings of the LiDaR data must be considered by the reader in its context, with review by experts who know the limitations of that evidence. The role of the IE is to assess the dPS as presented for soundness, it is not to assess other potential boundary extensions as preferable options. We consider that the evidential context, while lacking to an extent in respect of the reasonings for the boundary selected compared to other areas that were omitted is proportionate for this stage in the process. Shortcomings in the evidence base for the ASAI and the candidate extension area are not fatal to soundness. We concur that the identification of the extension area is warranted based on the evidence of the historic environment presented to support the designation boundaries within it.

14.9

The first paragraph of Policy HE1 necessitates a judgement if a development would adversely affect such sites of regional importance or the integrity of their setting. This requires understanding of the baseline to consider the value of the heritage asset and how it could be adversely affected. Paragraph 10.1.15 of the dPS refers to how ‘the unique historic upland landscape contains a wide array of pre-historic and historic archaeological sites and monuments.’ As new SMR’s are being continually identified there is potential for historic linkages leading to a better understanding of functionality and inter-relationships including historic agricultural trackways within the townlands. The candidate extension area currently contains eight known SMRs. Given a LDP process is time bound it is not possible to continually update the evidential record. The evidence base is robust in accordance with soundness test CE2. Notwithstanding, the reference to the archaeological sites and monuments in paragraph 10.1.15 of the dPS and the reference to the Northern Ireland Monuments and Buildings Record at the Archaeological Assessment and Evaluations Section at paragraph 10.1.19 detail on the

LDP2021/MEA/PS

122

historic archaeological sites and monuments referred to is needed for effective implementation. Additional text should be added to paragraph 10.1.15 to refer to the HED records, the landscape assessment of the area and the HED publication ‘Guidance on Setting and the Historic Environment’. The assessment of the integrity of the environmental asset and its setting can then be undertaken in accordance with this guidance in accordance with soundness test CE3. These additions are included in RA111. 14.10 It is undisputed that there is a rich archaeology and collection of scheduled monuments within the area that must be protected. While they are statutorily protected as individual heritage assets the additional tier of designation as an ASAI relates to more than the monuments within this geographical area. We agree with the Council that there is a necessity for an ASAI as it also enables the protection of the overall landscape character and integrity of their distinctive area. Having taken account of paragraph 6.29 of the SPPS an ASAI designation is realistic and appropriate in this context. 14.11 It is argued that the assessment of wind turbines and masts etc are predetermined by the reference in paragraph 10.1.15 of the justification and amplification for Policy HE1, as it is worded to assume that such development is likely to have an adverse impact on distinctive landscapes. Paragraph 10.1.15 of the dPS refers to the ASAI landscapes as high vulnerability to insensitive change. The wording ‘are likely to adversely impact’ is transposed from Technical Supplement 10-Countryside Assessment Appendix A - Landscape Character Assessment (DPS133 Page 19, Paragraph 2.58). The Council consider the reference to ‘are likely to adversely impact’ is not definitive; the option remains open for applicants to provide the necessary information for the determination of applications for masts, pylons, and wind turbine developments. This can include analysis of the specifics of the landscape, the merits of the case, mitigation measures or detailed site assessments that typically accompany applications to show their proposal will not have an adverse impact on the ASAI. However, also within the evidence base of Technical Supplement 13 – Built Environment and Creating Places Appendix C (DPS-141) is the Statement of Significance. The last sentence relates to the landscape character and in respect of turbines, pylons etc uses the wording ‘it may adversely impact on the landscape character.’ Applicants would be aware that the impact on the landscape character is a key concern and would expect the ASAI to represent a hurdle to these types of development. Revision to the wording to be consistent with the Statement of Significance to ‘may adversely impact’ would satisfy soundness test CE1. It also provides for sufficient flexibility to deal with the specifics of the case. This could include scale, volume of structures or equipment or changing circumstances including any potential mitigation that could be a material consideration in the balancing exercise of adverse effect on the integrity of the asset. Considering soundness test CE4 the wording in paragraph 10.1.15 should be amended. This is RA112. 14.12 PM-141 adds an additional to the section on Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation below paragraph 10.1.21 of the dPS. It relates to the discovery of archaeological remains during construction and draws attention to the reporting requirements within the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (NI) Order 1995. Development Management Practice Note 5: “Historic Environment” will continue to apply upon adoption of the dPS. Its preamble says that it is designed to provide guidance on “the legislative provisions for the additional controls and considerations related to the historic environment.” The LDP policies do not need

LDP2021/MEA/PS

123

to cite or cross-reference to associated legislative provisions to be sound; such statutory requirements will apply regardless. This PM is not required for soundness. 14.13 Areas of Archaeological Potential (AAP) will be highlighted for the benefit of prospective developers in the LPP. Areas identified through the complication of the Gazetteer of Nucleated Historic Urban Settlements can form part of the evidence base at that time. It is not necessary that they are referenced in the dPS. Subject to RA111-RA112 Policy HE1 is sound. 14.14 Policy HE2 Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes sets out the criteria when planning permission will be granted for development proposals within historic parks, gardens, and demesnes (or which may impact on their settings). Policy HE2 provides an appropriate balance between protection and opportunity and is sound as written. 14.15 PM-157 relates to the glossary definition of Historic Park, Garden or Demesne of Special Historic Interest. The reference to central government is replaced by reference to the register maintained by the Department of Communities. As a clear mechanism for implementation is required this is RA113. It is necessary to satisfy the coherence and effectiveness test CE3. 14.16 Policy HE3 Listed Buildings – Change of Use or Extension/Alteration or Conversion of a Listed Building requires that all works to a listed building must ensure that the essential character and special architectural and/or historic interest is protected, conserved and where possible enhanced. The aim as per paragraph 10.1.26 of the dPS is to secure the upkeep and retention of the listed building. Given their age listed buildings can become habitats for protected species including bats. The Policy HE3 headnote cross refers to meeting the other provisions of the LDP. This would include the natural heritage policies including Policy NAT5 Habitats, Species or features of Natural Heritage Importance which seeks to prevent damage to known priority species or rare or threatened native species. Soundness test C4 is also satisfied through the Policy GP1 e) iv. which has had regard the Biodiversity Strategy. There is no basis for amending the wording of Policy HE3 to include specific reference to the enhancement or the incorporation of biodiversity features into the design and layout of development proposals affecting listed buildings. 14.17 Policy HE3 covers Change of Use of a Listed Building and Extension/Alteration or Conversion of a Listed Building. The word ‘conversion’ is not defined in the dPS. It appears in the PPS 6 Planning Archaeology and the Built Heritage paragraphs 6.8 and 6.17, however, it is not defined. The SPPS refers only to change of use and/or works of extension/alteration. The Council at the IE hearing sessions referred to a conversion as a substantial alteration to a building that is more significant in scale than an extension/alteration. It need not always incorporate a change of use. A definition of conversion would be of benefit within the justification and amplification to assist its interpretation, however its absence does not make Policy HE3 unsound. 14.18 Consistency test CE1 does not require that the word ‘details’ within Policy HE3 criterion (b) is replaced with 'techniques'. While ‘technique’ may refer to a skill set, BS 7913:2013 would be misplaced within the justification and amplification text at paragraph 10.1.32 as building control regulations are out with the planning process.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

124

14.19 The term ‘historic asset’ is referenced in paragraph 10.1.28 of the justification and amplification text of Policy HE3. The Glossary defines “heritage assets” on page 307 of the dPS, historic asset is not defined. Heritage asset is referred to throughout Policy HE9 Enabling Development of the Conservation of Heritage Assets and defined at footnote 58 on page 282. For logical flow the consistent use of the term ‘heritage asset’ in place of ‘historic asset’ is RA114. As Council are satisfied that the definitions of a heritage asset in the glossary and at footnote 58 are correct, we see no reason to change them. 14.20 The glossary definition of a Listed Building on page 309 is inaccurate. PM-159 is required to ensure a clear mechanism for implementation to satisfy soundness test CE3. This is RA115. Subject to RA115 Policy HE3 is sound. 14.21 Policy HE4 relates to Listed Buildings and the demolition of a Listed Building and sets a presumption in favour of retaining listed buildings. Given the policy includes the need to submit comprehensive evidence to justify the case for demolition it is inherent that there will be a detailed consideration of that evidence. The insertion of ‘may only be considered for demolition ….’. is not necessary for soundness test CE1. 14.22 Among the exceptions to the stated presumption in favour of retaining listed buildings paragraph 10.1.36 identifies “substantial benefits for the community”. It is not necessary for the coherence tests that examples of such circumstances are provided. Policy HE4 is sound as written. Policy HE5 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building is sound as written. 14.23 Policy HE6 Conservation Areas sets a presumption in favour of the conservation of individual historic buildings and the character of development within the wider historic environment for the five conservation areas within the plan area. Several PMs are made to each of the following constituent parts, ‘New Build or Replacement Buildings’; ‘Alteration, Extensions and Change of Use’; and ‘Demolition within a Conservation Area’. 14.24 Within the section for ‘New Build or Replacement Buildings’ section PM-145 revises the wording to criterion a) ‘the overall character and appearance of the conservation area is enhanced or preserved where an opportunity to enhance does not exist’. This reflects the correct balance between ‘enhancing’ and ‘preserving’ in line with regional policy and soundness test C3. It is also consistent with the first paragraph of Policy HE6. This is RA116 to satisfy soundness test CE1. This duplication of this requirement within the section related to Alteration, Extensions and Change of Use is unnecessary as paragraph 3 already requires that criterion a) is met. 14.25 For the section relating to ‘Alterations, Extensions and Change of Use’ stipulates compliance with four criteria ‘unless the applicant can demonstrate why they are inappropriate with regard to the character and appearance of the conservation area.’ In line with regional policy in the SPPS at paragraph 4.29 this allows for innovative design solutions avoiding a rigid and formulaic approach to design while taking account of the character and appearance of the area. We do not consider this exception weakens the intent of the Policy HE6, rather it introduces flexibility based on the unique features of the building and its locality and balanced against the merits of a specific scheme design. Notwithstanding, even if it were assessed as an exception, the Council remain under a statutory duty to preserve and enhance conservation areas in their assessment of any proposal for an alteration, extension or change of use. PMLDP2021/MEA/PS

125

142 removes text relating to materials and finishes from criterion a) as these issues are generally contained with criterion c) combined with the addition of ‘to be respectful of form and alignment’. As required by soundness test CE3 it removes ambiguity between criterion a) and c) ensuring a clear mechanism for the implementation of Policy HE6. This is RA117. 14.26 Within the section of Policy HE6 on ‘Demolition within a Conservation Area’, PM-143 deletes the penultimate paragraph which cross references to Policy HE4, Demolition of a Listed Building. Its inclusion would afford greater weight to the protection of buildings within a conservation area than that required by the SPPS at paragraph 6.18. As the hierarchy of the demolition policy test should align with the significance of the heritage asset RA118 is necessary to satisfy soundness test C3. Subject to RA116-RA118 Policy HE6 is sound as written. 14.27 Policy HE7 Areas of Townscape Character is sound as written. 14.28 PM-140, PM-144, PM-146 and PM-147 propose revision from ‘non-listed’ buildings to ‘unlisted’ buildings throughout the introduction and in Policy HE8. As this has taken account of the terminology at paragraph 6.24 of the SPPS it is RA119 to satisfy soundness test C3. 14.29 Policy HE8 relates to, now to, Un-listed Locally Important Buildings or Vernacular Building and is set out in two parts. The first part provides a presumption in favour of Conversion/Reuse; the second part provides the circumstances for the replacement of non-listed vernacular dwellings in the countryside. The later states that ‘the existing dwelling must be retained in perpetuity and incorporated in the layout of the overall development scheme to form an integrated building group.’ This differs to Policy CTY 3-Replacement Buildings in PPS 21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside which ‘encourages’ the retention and sympathetic refurbishment of non-listed dwellings. Rather than proposals being considered based on whether they make an important contribution to the heritage, appearance and character of the locality, the Councils approach is to simplify the requirements. The Policy retains all vernacular dwellings in perpetuity. The provisions of paragraph 6.24 of the SPPS states that Councils may wish to bring forward bespoke local policies for such buildings. Moreover, the precautionary principle applies to archaeological and built heritage assets. This affords the Council significant latitude in respect of policy for non-statutory assets for their local areas. Vernacular dwellings are a diminishing resource, and we consider their retention to provide a link to the past or retain the group in a manner that takes a genuinely heritage led approach to be sound. Policy HE8 has taken account of regional policy considering consistency test C3 and coherence and effectiveness test CE1 in this respect. 14.30 We have considered the requests for further revisions to incorporate consistency between HE8 and paragraph 6.24 of the SPPS. These include a further revision of the policy title from Unlisted Locally Important Buildings or Vernacular Building to ‘Historic Buildings of Local Importance or Vernacular Buildings’. The policy title covers the content of the policy headnote. The terms used in the policies do not have to exactly match those in the SPPS when it is clear what is meant. Representors also sought additional references to heritage related design guidance to take account of the SPPS at paragraphs 10.1.57, 10.1.58 and footnote 11. It is not necessary to refer to non-planning guidance documents which may assist in the protection of heritage assets in Policy HE8.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

126

14.31 MEAM40 was submitted by the Council at hearing sessions of the IE in response to representations to refer to structures and features. By excluding them from the definition a locally important building the justification and amplification at 10.1.57 is inconsistent with regional policy at paragraph 6.24 of the SPPS and the associated footnote 11 on page 41 which defines what is meant by a historic building of local importance. The introduction of the reference to structures or features is required to take account of regional policy to satisfy soundness test C3. The SPPS does not specify the proposals are limited to a conversion proposal; all proposals affecting non listed locally important buildings are covered by paragraph 6.24. The coherence and effectiveness test CE3 requires that there is no gap in policy and the first sentence of the headnote should be amended incorporate all proposals rather than those which involve a conversion. This is RA120. 14.32 As previously referred to in this report biodiversity is promoted through The General Policy for All Development Policy GP1 e) iv relating to sustainable development. However, Policy HE8 does not cross refer to Policy GP1 in the same manner as Policy HE3 Listed Building-Change of Use or Extension/Alteration or Conversion of a Listed Building. Notwithstanding paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS, its approach should be consistent where there is a requirement within the policy to retain an old building that could be home to a wide range of biodiversity. RA121 replicates the cross reference to GP1 and the need to accord with other provisions of the LDP. On this basis, an additional cross reference to Policy TOU5 criterion b) Replacement of an Existing Rural Dwelling is not necessary for compliance with soundness test CE1 as the detail is set out at paragraph 7.3.20 (as per RA050). Subject to RA119-RA121 Policy HE8 achieves an appropriate balance between soundness tests C3, CE1 and CE3 in these respects. 14.33 Policy HE9 relates to Enabling Development for the Conservation of Heritage Assets permits enabling development relating to the conservation, refurbishment and re use of the heritage asset in exceptional circumstances where it will not materially harm its heritage value or setting. Policy HE9 requires a statement of justification to demonstrate ten criteria. In response to consultee requests PM-148 revises the wording of the justification and amplification text at paragraph 10.1.64 of the dPS that relates to long term benefits. The text is modified from the requirement of ‘securing a significant place’ to ‘securing a heritage asset’. As the term heritage asset is required for internally consistent terminology with the policy title, criterion a) and g) and Policy HE3 this is RA122 in light of soundness test CE1. 14.34 Paragraph 10.1.66 of the dPS is largely based on paragraph 4.5 of PPS 23 “Enabling Development”. PM-149 seeks to add further detail to cover non-financial aspects including information on the significance of the heritage asset, plans or a conservation statement. The plan policies are not required to replicate the provisions of regional policy however, in this case it assists with the implementation of criterion d) and g). This is RA123. 14.35 Soundness test CE3 does not require that the justification and amplification refers to regional guidance within PPS 23 Best Practice Guidance. This remains of relevance regardless of whether the Council continue to consider preparation of an SPG on enabling development as set out within the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142). 14.36 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 216-226 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the suite of historic environment policies. Counter objections have also been considered. Other than the issues LDP2021/MEA/PS

127

already addressed in this section, we agree with the Council’s analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA111RA123 that the strategic approach set out to protect the plan areas historic environment is sound. Advertisements 14.37 Soundness test CE1 does not require the policy title to refer to heritage assets, the historic environment or that the headnote includes an alternative sub-title ‘Advertisements and the Historic Environment’. The policy logically flows from the title. PM-150 clarifies that section all advertisements criteria (a-f) apply to both the subsequent sections of the policy in addition to their individual criteria. This is RA124 to meet the coherence and effectiveness test CE1 and CE3. 14.38 Policy AD1 requires an assessment of advertisements on heritage assets or its setting. An additional five criteria relate specifically to Advertisements and Heritage Assets based on five additional matters. All types of heritage asset are considered as set out in the glossary at page 307 of the dPS. In such a scenario an application would also be subject of the statutory consultation process. The advice of HED in respect of matters affecting the setting of these assets would inform any consideration of such proposals. 14.39 Criterion h) of Policy AD1 directs that advertisements within or close to a conservation area will only be (our emphasis) acceptable where they would not adversely affect the overall character, appearance and setting of the area. Assessment of proposals located beyond the designated conservation area fall within the scope of this policy. This approach is consistent with regional policy within paragraph 6.20 of the SPPS. Criterion h) of Policy AD1 respects soundness test C3. 14.40 Criterion k) of Policy AD1 states that consent will not be granted for internally illuminated advertisements within the historic environment and associated heritage assets. Appendix K of the dPS titled ‘Advertisements’ (pages 354-363) sets out the Council’s detailed guidance to provide a consistent basis against which to consider the display of different categories of advertisements. Within the Appendix K: Advertisements of the dPS, page 354, guidance is provided for advertisements in respect of Heritage Assets and their settings. This guidance repeats the wording of criterion k). We find no contradiction or conflict between the policy headnote and the appendix for internally illuminated advertisements. 14.41 Policy AD1 sets out five circumstances when the consent for the display of digital advertising screens will not be granted at criteria l) to p). Page 355 of the dPS (Appendix K) provides guidance for Digital Advertising Screens. It refers to them as ‘highly controllable, and it is therefore possible to provide recommendations to manage the level of distraction by control of type, brightness, form of change and interval between advertisements, as well as giving detailed consideration to appropriate locations and positioning’. Accordingly, any application for consent could potentially be appropriately conditioned for its unique circumstances. The absolute prohibition on digital advertising screens as set out at criteria l) to p) would have to be considered in this context.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

128

14.42 Representations consider the Digital Advertising Screen section of Policy AD1 is non-compliant with regional policy, overly prescriptive and unnecessarily restrictive given the preceding policy provisions. While the SPPS refers to illuminated signage at paragraph 6.59 it contains no guidance specific to digital advertising screens. Given the passage of time since the 2005 publication of PPS 6 Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage and the March 2006 PPS17 Control of Outdoor Advertisements it is unsurprising that they do not include policy for digital advertising which is a more modern form of advertising. The duty to ‘take account of’ does not require the repeat of regional policy per baton, the Council are entitled to build on regional policy specific to their areas. The potential for a new policy relating to the control of flashing, scrolling, animated, intermittent, or moving digital signage was set out at Preferred Options Stage. Having considered the responses considering soundness test P2 the Council stated that they found persuasive justification for a separate policy element for digital advertising screens. The principle of a separate policy section for digital advertising screens is realistic and appropriate and does not raise concerns in respect of soundness test C3 and CE2. 14.43 Criterion L) refers to consent for digital advertising screens not being granted when positioned above ground floor level. Appendix K also contains a section on the number and location of advertisements. PM-151 relates to installations above ground floor level. It removes the statement ‘As a general rule such proposals will be resisted’. All policy, when read in the round, and within the context of the suite of policies already has flexibility that considers the characteristics of the surrounding area and character of the location. This change is not necessary for soundness; it is further detail on whether such circumstances warrant a definitive refusal. Its inclusion is a matter for the Council. 14.44 Policy for the display of advertisements which affects a heritage asset, or its setting is set out within Policy AD1 criteria g) to k). Digital advertising screens in these areas would be assessed against a separate criterion m). This amounts to a prohibition on digital advertising screens within or adjacent to conservation areas, Area of Townscape Character, or on a listed building or within the setting of a listed building. The benefits of outdoor advertising including the contribution they can make to a vibrant and competitive economy are set out within paragraph 10.2.1 of the dPS. Paragraph 10.2.13 acknowledges that commercial centres can include conservation areas and accepts that it is essential to commercial activity. The need for balance is clear in making those commercial centres more attractive places to shop and invest. 14.45 MEAM43 was submitted by the Council at the IE hearing sessions to introduce the word ‘normally’ in the Policy AD1 headnote. Policy cannot anticipate the circumstances of every case and indicate the weight to be given to competing material considerations; there would inevitably be an element of professional judgement on a case-by-case basis. This introduces a flexibility that enables an appropriate tension to be achieved between the economy and amenity. It is also needed to enable the commercial centres to avail of all appropriate development opportunities taking account of how the units can be controlled. The appropriate use of conditions can assist in ensuring that the overall character and appearance of the area is maintained. Bus shelter advertisements including the introduction of real time bus information may also benefit from this additional flexibility. RA124 incorporates the word ‘normally’ in MEAM43. It is necessary for soundness tests CE1 and CE3. 14.46 The section on digital advertising screens within Appendix K refers to ‘overly bright signage will be resisted if it harms amenity, light spill, light pollution, glare etc or safety’. Cross LDP2021/MEA/PS

129

reference to the lighting section within Appendix K refers to compliance with specific tables within the Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance PLG05. Sufficient detail on acceptable lighting levels is provided. The dPS does not need to be any more prescriptive for soundness. 14.47 Digital advertising screens is a widely used term. The abbreviations and glossary section of the dPS is sound without a definition. 14.48 In the dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 227-228 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to advertisements. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA124 that the strategic approach set out for advertisements is sound. Place Making 14.49 Policy SFA1 Strategic Focus Areas seeks to promote the principles of successful place making and good design to achieve a coherent and sustainable approach to development within strategically important urban areas. Paragraph 4.32 of the SPPS says that key to successful place-making is identifying the assets of a particular place as well as developing a vision for its future potential. Paragraph 10.3.2 refers to the development of a bespoke spatial framework for key urban areas and how the LDP aims to support the delivery of the economic, tourism and environmental aspects of the Community Plan Putting People First (DPS-603). Soundness test C2 is satisfied in respect of supporting the Council’s vision as expressed in the Community Plan. 14.50 It is an evitable part of the two stage process that policies will refer to specific areas that will be identified later through the LPP stage of the process. Paragraphs 10.3.5 and 10.3.9 of the dPS reference the development of a spatial framework which will set out the planning objectives and identify the key features within a Strategic Focus Area generated through a detailed survey. This will be subject to public consultation. Accordingly, it is not necessary that the criteria for their identification, detail in terms of numbers or their extent is set out at this stage in the process. Any comments on their effectiveness in respect of delivery against place making objectives could form part of the process relative to the specific circumstances at the time. 14.51 Soundness test C4 requires only the dPS have regard to the Living Places Design Guide and the Ten Qualities of Urban Design and Stewardship. It is not necessary they are referred to within the Policy SFA1 headnote as their inclusion in paragraph 10.3.3 of the dPS shows regard has been had to them. How their principles are incorporated is for the Council to consider as part of the LPP stage of the process. Policy SFA1 is sound as written.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

130

15.0 Safeguarding our Natural Environment 15.1

The strategic environmental objectives for the plan area are stated at page 46 of the dPS. These include the core principles a) and c) which generally take account of the provisions of first and second bullet points of paragraph 6.172 of the SPPS. The natural heritage policy aims as stated at paragraph 11.1.6 of the dPS refer to the precautionary principle when considering the potential impacts of development on important natural heritage resources, nature conservation sites and significant landscapes within the plan area. This takes account of paragraph 6.174 of the SPPS which requires that planning authorities should apply the precautionary principle when considering the impacts of a proposed development on national or international natural heritage resources.

15.2

To have regard to the three tiers of natural heritage designations (International, European, and National) PM-152, relating to paragraph 11.1.7 of the dPS, ensures policies logically flow from each of the respective tiers of designation. RA125 is required for soundness test CE1.

15.3

PM-153 corrects paragraph 11.1.8 as it relates to Policy NAT1 European and Ramsar Sites – International. Alongside the provision of additional detail on their designation the reference to the Ramsar Convention on wetlands represents a factual correction. RA126 is necessary to satisfy the coherence and effectiveness test CE1.

15.4

Policy NAT2 relates to Species Protected by Law and aims to prevent harm to European and National Protected Species. It has taken account of the requirements of the SPPS at paragraphs 6.179-6.182. MEAM41 was submitted by the Council at the hearing session of the IE to strike through PM-154 which referred to the DEARA list of NI Priority Species at the end of paragraph 11.1.11 of the dPS. Policy NAT2 relates to protected species, distinct to priority species. The reference to all fish being protected is inaccurate and could confuse the reader. The approach within MEAM41 is appropriate to ensure a clear mechanism for implementation. Paragraph 11.1.11 as originally drafted is sound and PM-154 is not required.

15.5

Policy NAT3 relates to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – National. It provides for a development proposal that is not likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity, including the value of the site to the habitat network or special interest in four designations. It provides for a development proposal which could adversely affect a site of national importance where the associated public benefits of the proposed development clearly outweigh the value of the site. In such cases appropriate mitigation and/or compensatory measures will be required. Regional policy at paragraph 6.184 of the SPPS does not define the ‘associated public benefits of the proposed development’. It remains with the Council to consider if the public benefit clearly outweighs the value of the site. No issue arises with the interpretation of ‘public benefit’, this will be a matter for the Council to judge, we accept this approach is acceptable and does not give rise to any concern in respect of soundness.

15.6

Policy NAT4 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – Local provides for the protection of local nature reserves and wildlife refuges. MEAM42 was provided by the Council at the hearing to update PM-155 to remove the reference at 11.1.13 to the Ulster Wildlife Trust establishing Local Nature Reserves, reference the responsibilities of Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and states that wildlife refuges are designated by DEARA. RA127 is required to satisfy

LDP2021/MEA/PS

131

soundness test CE3 thereby enabling a clear mechanism for implementation. Subject to this recommended amendment Policy NAT4 as drafted is sound. 15.7

Policy NAT5 Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to known listed features. Paragraph 11.1.15 sets out how the policy seeks to ensure that the conservation, protection and where possible, the enhancement of local biodiversity is treated as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, irrespective of whether the species or habitats are subject to legal protection or otherwise through the LDP natural environment policies. This is justification and amplification for the headnote. We do not consider this to be a lower level of responsibility than that found within the regional policy at paragraph 5.13 of PPS 2, Policy NH5, Habitats, Species and Features of Natural Heritage Importance.

15.8

Representors seek greater certainty for the promotion of biodiversity opportunities and enhancement in mineral sites within the balancing of the economic need for the mineral development against the need to protect the environment. However, these would be specific to the individual site and proposal. Their suitability is a matter for the decision-maker and is not something that the dPS can prescribe given the need to take account of evolving legal precedent to determine the point in the decision-making process that such ameliorative measures would be weighed when assessing environmental impact. The omission of reference to the role of biodiversity in sustainable mineral development does not go to the soundness of Policy NAT5. No change is required to meet the tests of soundness.

15.9

We have previously set out how the Council have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity under the WANE Act (2011). This is detailed at paragraphs 11.1.3 and 11.1.16 of the dPS alongside the EU and NI Biodiversity Strategies at paragraph 2.1.18 of the dPS. Representors consider that the dPS should include buffer zones around designated sites. There is no comparable provision in the SPPS or PPS 2 Natural Heritage. Buffers could be inflexible and create an unnecessary constraint on development. Policy NAT2 allows for siting and design that is sensitive to biodiversity. It is not necessary for the coherence and effectiveness tests that additional provision for protection is afforded beyond the designated boundary.

15.10 Draft BMAP designated 23 Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCIs) within the former Carrickfergus Borough. They are listed within Technical Supplement 10: The Countryside Assessment (DPS-132) at paragraph 3.14. However, the extant BAP 1986-2001 and LAP 2010 do not contain SLNCIs due to their age. Features of nature conservation interest and biodiversity within existing SLNCIs can be protected adequately under Policy NAT5 Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance. Local nature reserves and wildlife refuges are considered under Policy NAT4 Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance. The dPS provides comprehensive coverage for those natural heritage features which merit protection. Soundness test C3 has been met in respect of the provision for designated sites, and protection of biodiversity. 15.11 Paragraph 6.195 of the SPPS requires that LDPs identify and promote the design of ecological networks throughout the plan area which would help reduce the fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats through a strategic approach. The SPPS glossary describes ecological networks as intended to maintain environmental processes and to help conserve and enhance LDP2021/MEA/PS

132

biodiversity. They comprise core areas, movement routes and buffer zones. Ecological networks can be facilitated through the natural heritage draft policies as well as the Countryside strategy CS2, CS7 and Policy OSL2. The dPS has taken account of paragraph 6.195 of the SPPS. 15.12 Representors requested that the need to have regard to the Antrim Coast and Glens Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should be explicitly incorporated into all the natural heritage policies. The policy provisions of CS5 Antrim Coast and Glens AONB include reference to impact on both heritage and wildlife in recognition that the role of an AONB extends beyond landscape protection. In addition, the second sentence of CS5 states, 'All new development proposals within the AONB or its setting must meet the General Policy and accord with other provisions of the LDP’. Mindful of paragraph 1.7.8 of the dPS there is no need to replicate CS5 in the reverse to refer to the AONB within the suite of natural environment policies. 15.13 Section 121 (a) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to ensure, wherever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development, adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees. Policy NAT5 Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance includes ancient and long-established woodland; and other natural features worthy of protection including trees and woodland and is consistent with the paragraph 6.192 of the SPPS however, the dPS omits a specific policy to encourage new planting. New tree planting can be facilitated by Policy GP1, HOU1, CS8. The open space policies including Policy OSL2 can assist with the enhancement of green corridors and tree planting. Council’s evidence refers to producing Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to trees and development which would welcome tree retention and new planting. The disparate provisions for planting of trees and woodland would be more “user friendly” if subject of a dedicated policy that drew all those individual strands together. However, the examiner’s task is not to make the plan “more sound.” Mindful of the statutory duty and soundness test CE3, in those respects, the dPS is not deficient in terms of the issues of trees, woodland and biodiversity. 15.14 Representations in respect of the Council’s lack of announcement relating to the climate crisis and climate change, adoption of a species mascot and the lack of a biodiversity officer are outside the remit of soundness. The identification of species in decline; of concern; or invasive species can be identified as part of the standard development management process if necessary and is out with the IE process. The proportion of the dPS document or its position in the later sections of the dPS has no bearing on the priority given to natural heritage or the effectiveness of the suite of policies. 15.15 The Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) pages 231-238 relate to the suite of natural heritage policies. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Councils analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the representations to the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143). Taking account of all of the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA125-RA127 that the strategic approach set out to protect the plan areas natural heritage is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

133

16.0 Other issues Abbreviations and Glossary 16.1

The Council provided provides a list of abbreviations and glossary within the dPS from pages 305-312. They seek to add or amend abbreviations set out in the abbreviations and glossary within the schedule of proposed modifications at DPS-143 as set out below.

16.2

PM-156 seeks to provide a coherent strategy via the provision of a definition of contaminated land. In the dPS context, this is appropriate and necessary to meet soundness test CE1 and CE2. RA128 is necessary for soundness.

16.3

PM-157 removed the word of central government from the definition of Historic Park, Garden or Demesne of Special Historic Interest is appropriate to affiliate this definition with the DfC and provides a coherent strategy test CE1. RA113 has been accepted in Section 14 of this report as necessary for soundness. Within Section 12 of this report RA075 accepts PM-158 in respect of the revision of the definition of intermediate housing. Within Section 14 of this report RA115 accepts PM-159 which alters the glossary definition of a listed building.

16.4

In addition to those listed the definition of valuable minerals was discussed during the hearing session on mineral development. Following submission of the agreed position between the Council ad DFE Energy Section in MEAM15 it is accepted as RA061 within Section 11 of this report. Monitor and Review

16.5

As recognised throughout this report monitor and review of the Local Development Plan (LDP) is an integral part of the plan making process. Section 13 of the Act requires that a Council must carry out a review of its LDP and Part 6 of Regulations requires the Council to submit and Annual Monitoring Report to the DF1 to indicate the extent to which the objectives set out in the LDP are being achieved. The SPPS reinforces this statutory requirement for all councils to keep under review the implementation of their plans and to report annually to the DFI on whether the objectives in the PS and LPP are being achieved.

16.6

Technical Supplement 1 Monitoring and Review (DPS-116) sets out the Council’s approach to the Council’s monitoring. The forms a separate document from the dPS which the Council have stated will form the basis of their Annual Monitor and Review (AMR) to be submitted annually to DfI, post adoption of the plan. This approach complies with the regulations and procedure for preparing a DPD, satisfying soundness test P4.

16.7

The Council have stated the AMR will focus on the following indicators: Housing land supply; number of additional housing units; supply of economic development purposes; and such other issues as appear to the Councill to be relevant to the implementation of the LDP.

16.8

Appendix A of Technical Supplement 1 (DPS-116) provides the monitoring framework relative to the Social, Economic and Environmental Objectives and indicators for the plan. This follows from and is consistent with the strategic objective of the dPS.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

134

16.9

Social Objective (a), indicator 1, has a review trigger for the number of new dwellings approved in villages, small settlements, and the countryside exceeds 5% of the target set in the Strategic Housing Allocation (SGS3)of the dPS. The trigger is silent on whether this is for individual allocations to each settlement or the countryside or a collective allocation for all settlements and the countryside. The Council in the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) have indicated the trigger is for both individual and cumulative. The trigger as drafted is proportionate and permits flexibility for the required consideration.

16.10 Social Objective (c) indicator 4 can be applied to both the first phase and second phase release of housing land. Monitoring Indicator 4 will assist with determining when phase 2 land is to be released and this would also review the uptake of existing housing commitments for the plan area. No change is necessary for this indicator. 16.11 A suggestion was made by representors that Social Objective (d) should include a monitor of the loss of open space. PM-160 has considered this suggestion taken which introduces a target and associated trigger to restrict the development of open space relating to social objective (d). However, the Council consider that such an indicator would be better placed in the context of the monitoring of environmental objective (a). We consider that such monitoring and review of open space is beneficial and realistic given the policy provisions of the dPS and that it should be appropriately placed within the environmental monitoring indicators. RA129 relates to the incorporation of the suggested target and identified trigger to be incorporated into Appendix A of the Council’s Monitoring Framework. This is necessary to provide a clear mechanism for implementation and monitoring of the plans objective as required by soundness test CE3. 16.12 We concur with the Council’s consideration in the Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) and accept that it not necessary for a trigger and review of Greenways and heritage assessments to meet the social objectives of the dPS. A trigger to monitor and review biodiversity loss in the plan would be difficult to quantify and measure especially over the plan area given its size. An indicator and trigger to monitor biodiversity is not necessary satisfy soundness test CE3. 16.13 PM-161 seeks to capture the impact of proposals involving demolition of all listed buildings to ensure appropriate monitoring of objective (e) indicator 26. The PM will provide a clear mechanism to monitor the loss of all listed buildings rather than 10% of listed buildings. RA130 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE3. 16.14 Given the individual character and appearance of designated Conservation Areas and Areas of Townscape Character in the plan area it would be unrealistic monitor and identify triggers to have a clear mechanism to review any changes to these area over the plan period. Such an amendment is not necessary to satisfy soundness test CE3. 16.15 Environmental Objective e) indicator reference 28 provides a clear mechanism to for implementation and review of the ASAI. It is robust and does not to be amended to satisfy the test of soundness CE2. 16.16 PM-162 seeks to monitor and review how the LDP will contribute to climate change and its contribution to mitigating climate change. It covers the amount of renewable energy (MW) by source and commercial peat extraction. The PM will provide clear mechanisms to facilitate the LDP2021/MEA/PS

135

monitoring of climate change and ecological emergencies for the plan area. RA131 is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE3. 16.17 Appendix A of Technical Supplement 1 Monitoring and Review (DPS-116) includes Social Objective g) to the promotion of active travel and economic objective c) seeks to protect strategically important transportation assets and routes and enhance connectivity. We are satisfied that clear mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring land use and transportation are provided within the monitoring framework. No change is necessary to satisfy soundness test CE3. 16.18

The dPS Public Consultation Report (DPS-142) at pages 244-247 the Council have addressed associated representations in respect of soundness relating to the monitoring framework for the dPS. Other than the issues already addressed in this section, we agree with the Council’s analysis of them and conclusions thereon. We have also considered the Schedule of Proposed Modifications (DPS-143) and any representations received to them. Taking account of all the evidence we are satisfied subject to RA129-RA131 the monitoring framework as provided in Technical Supplement 1 (DPS-116) provides clear mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the dPS and satisfies the tests of soundness.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

136

17.0 Overall Conclusion 17.1

In Section 1.0 of this report, an interim conclusion was reached on legal and procedural compliance. Having considered the plan policies in the preceding sections, the Council’s evidence base demonstrates that: •

•

17.2

The dPS has taken account of the RDS; the current Community Plan “Putting People First”; any policy or advice contained in guidance issued by the Department; and other matters prescribed by the Department such as the applicable DPPNs and the latest HGIs. The dPS has had regard to such other information and considerations as appear to the Council to be relevant. In all, we are satisfied that Section 8 of the Act has been complied with; and Subject to the recommended amendments (RAs) identified in this report and as set out in Appendix 6 thereof, the dPS also satisfies the requirements of Section 10 (6) of the Act.

Subject to our RAs, the dPS satisfies all the legislative requirements and the procedural, consistency and coherence and effectiveness tests of soundness set out in DPPN 6. On that basis, the dPS for Mid and East Antrim Borough Council is sound.

LDP2021/MEA/PS

137

Planning Appeals Commission 4th Floor 92 Ann Street Belfast BT1 3HH Date: 12th May 2023 Claire Patton, Principal Planning Officer, DfI Regional Planning Policy and Casework Directorate, Plan Oversight Team By email to: claire.patton@infrastructure-ni.gov.uk

Dear Claire, Re: MEABC IE Recommended Amendments In response to recent discussions and further correspondence dated 4th May 2023 please find attached Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy). This table takes account of the DfI identified typographical errors and omissions and makes the necessary corrections. This table (Revision A) replaces the version previously issued on 28th February 2023 and should be read alongside the IE Report as previously issued. Upon the review the Commissioners have also identified typographical errors and the omission of some text originally stated in the dPS document. The table (Revision A) also updates these typographical errors and omissions. Additionally, in respect of CS3 Area of Constraint on High Structures, the Commission has provided a copy of the comprehensive wording relating to the justification and

amplification of this strategic spatial proposal. This is to assist the reader as there were a number of proposed modifications to the dPS text. The comprehensive text as provided takes account of the recommended amendments in the context of the wording of the dPS. This is set out in Annex 1 as attached. The Commission trusts that this is of assistance. Should any other queries arise please do not hesitate to contact the Commission.

Yours sincerely

Dennis Lucas Chief Administration Officer On behalf of the Planning and Water Appeals Commissions

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy)

Appendix 6 – Recommended Amendments

Recommended Linked to Amendment Council’s number amendment number (if applicable)1

Policy section within the Draft Plan Strategy

Page/ para number in Draft Plan Strategy

Paragraph in IE Report

Recommended Amendment

Page 28,

Paragraph 2.2

Insert text at end of paragraph 2.1.11: -

Sound Test

PART 1 of DPS Plan Introduction, District Profile, Setting the Context, Vision RA001

PM-002

Regional Policy Context. Section 2.1 Regional Water Strategy

Paragraph 2.2.11

The ‘Living with Water Programme’ (LWWP) has been established to progress a Strategic Drainage Infrastructure Plan in order to provide a holistic and integrated approach to drainage. Work has been ongoing to identify and prioritise infrastructure issues which need addressed. Through the LWWP, issues have been identified with the Carrickfergus sewerage network system and wastewater treatment works particularly with regard to

Proposed Modifications (PMs) as contained within DPS-143 Schedule of Proposed Modifications or Corrections within DPS-144 Schedule of Proposed Corrections submitted to DFI on 25th June 2021 or submitted as a Matter Arising during the public examination hearing sessions. The recommended amendment may reflect a revised wording to that originally suggested by MEABC following consideration of representations, response to questions and discussions under the various topic areas at the IE hearing sessions. In these circumstances the original Council reference is generally referred to in column 2 of this table as linked ‘in part’ to the recommended amendment or the column contains a specific explanation.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) discharges at Belfast Lough. These issues have the potential to impact on capacity for new connections and may lead to new connections being refused. RA002

RA003

In part PM-003 & Setting the Context. also derived Section 2.1 Other from Council Strategies and Plans evidence

Derived from note 9 in MEAM005

Page 29, Paragraph 2.1.18

Paragraph 2.7

Add bullet points to list stating:

•

Northern Ireland Regional Landscape Character Assessment (NIRLCA) 2016

•

The second Northern Ireland Climate Change Adaption Programme 2019-2024

District Profile Section Page 38, 3.6 Infrastructure Paragraph 3.6.6

Paragraph 2.11

Amended final sentence to read:

Strategic objectives

Paragraph 2.14

Objective a) should read:

Paragraph 2.16

Addition of a footnote to Objective c) stating:

CE2

The March 2022 update of the NI Water Capital Works Programme identifies four WWTWs for upgrade.

Strategic Objectives RA004

PM-004

Page 44, Economic objective a)

RA005

PM-004

Strategic Objectives

Page 45 Social objective

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

CE1

To provide a generous supply and choice of sites for business and employment uses so as to assist in promoting sustainable economic growth in Mid and East Antrim and in meeting the locational needs of particular sectors, including new and emerging sectors.

In April 2016 DFI published HGIs for the period

CE1, CE2

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) c)

2012-2025. In order to more closely relate the HGI to the plan period (2015-2030), Council projected the HGI on a pro rata basis to calculate the housing allocation for the period 2012-2030. In 2018 when distributing the allocation of housing to the settlements, Council calculated the figures for the remainder of the plan period 2018-2030 by deducting the number of completed housing units for the period 2012-2018 from the projected allocation. Refer to Appendix A.

Spatial Growth Strategy RA006

PM-005

SGS3 Strategic Allocation of Housing in Settlements

Page 63 Foot note

Paragraph 3.21

Add foot note to the end of the first sentence of CE1, paragraph 5.3.8 of the Justification and CE2 Amplification text stating: In April 2016 DFI published HGIs for the period 2012-2025. In order to more closely relate the HGI to the plan period (2015-2030), Council projected the HGI on a pro rata basis to calculate the housing allocations for the period 2012-2030. In 2018 when distributing the allocations of housing to the settlements, Council calculated the figures for the remainder of the plan period 2018-2030 by deducting the number of completed housing units for the period 2012-2018 from the projected allocation. Refer to Appendix A.

RA007

PM-006

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

SGS5

Page 67,

Paragraph

Insert text after point b) to state:

CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy)

RA008

PM-007

SGS5

criterion b)

3.43

Applications for Phase 2 housing land in advance of their re-designation as Phase 1 will be refused.

Page 67, criterion b)

Paragraph 3.43

Insert text after point b) to state:

CE1

Phase 2 housing land will be released at plan review where either of the following circumstances apply: i. The strategic allocation for the settlement would not be met by live planning permissions, urban capacity, and windfall potential. ii. It is demonstrated through the NIHE Housing Needs Assessment that there is insufficient uncommitted Phase 1 land to meet affordable housing needs.

RA009

PM-008 and PM009

SGS5

Page 67, Policy Headnote And Page 79, Paragraph 5.3.31

Paragraph 3.44

Under heading/section titled remaining small towns CE1 insert: Villages and Small Settlements Land will not be zoned in villages or small settlements in order to promote flexibility, however, Housing Policy Areas will be identified where appropriate. Amend first sentence of paragraph 5.3.31 to state: To retain flexibility for meeting various local needs e.g. economic or community uses, land will not be

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) zoned for housing in villages and small settlements. Economic Development Strategy RA010

Economic Development Strategy Introduction

Page 72, Paragraph 5.4.11

Paragraph 4.15

Add additional text to the end of paragraph to read:

Retail Strategy

Page 77, Paragraph 5.5.7

Paragraph 5.12

Add additional text to end of paragraph to read:

Page 81

Paragraph

Add new paragraph after Opportunity Category

CE3

The Council will not only be relying on previously zoned economic development land in their consideration of SGS6: Strategic Allocation of land for economic development. New sites for economic development may be identified at the local policies plan stage of the process to fulfil the required allocations within the main towns. The identification of a range and choice of sites will be required as part of the LPP. The evidence base indicates that further land is likely to be required to fulfil that aim in Ballymena over the plan period.

Retail Strategy RA011

PM-011

CE1

Portglenone’s position as a village in the Settlement Hierarchy is based primarily on population but in the Retail Hierarchy, it is elevated to the ‘small town centre’ tier as although the population is low, it far exceeds other villages in terms of retail offer.

Tourism Strategy RA012

PM-012

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Tourism Strategy

CE1 &

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Paragraph 5.6.11

6.3

paragraph 5.6.11 to read:

CE3

European Designated Sites extend along much of our coastline, through the Antrim Hills and Garron Plateau, Main Valley and around Lough Beg. There is potential for tourism to have a direct adverse effect on these sites and supporting habitats, or an indirect effect through increasing recreational pressure. Such potential effects will be considered through subject policies TOU3 and NAT1 and will inform any key site requirements for Tourism Opportunity Zones. Transport Strategy RA013

PM-013

Transport Strategy Introduction

Page 82, Paragraph 5.7.3

Paragraph 7.4 & 9.75

Amend first and second sentences to read:

CE1

Page 86, SGS9 Headnote

Paragraph 8.7

Amend the section on Provision for and facilitating of sport and outdoor recreation facilities to read:

The LTS has considered a range of options in order to meet the seven objectives. Following a qualitative assessment process, the LTS has concluded that the following nine transport measures should assist in the future development of Mid and East Antrim to 2030.

Open Space Strategy RA014

PM-015

SGS9 Open Space Strategy

The LDP will support firm proposals for the delivery of new or reconfigured public playing pitches in

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

CE4

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) accessible locations where the Council or other public bodies identify such a need. Countryside Strategy RA015

RA016

RA017

PM-017

PM-018 in part with change to reflect headnote wording

CS1 Sustainable Development in Countryside

Page 90, paragraph 5.9.6

Paragraph 9.1

Amend first bullet of paragraph 5.9.6 to read:

CS2 Special Countryside Areas

Page 94 paragraph 5.9.12

Paragraph 9.10 & 9.11

Amend third sentence of paragraph 5.9.12 to read:

Page 96

Paragraph 9.58

Amend the headnote of CS3 Areas of Constraint on High Structures to read:

In part CS3 Areas of encompasses the Constraint on high following PMs, Structures PM-020, PM022, PM-024, PM025, PM-027, PM-028 and PM030.

Headnote

To facilitate development which contributes to a sustainable rural economy and community in Mid and East Antrim; and

To this end, Council may require the submission of additional assessments which fully demonstrate that the landscape value and character and unique amenity value of the area has been fully considered and that any adverse impacts can be effectively mitigated.

Areas of Constraint on High Structures (ACHS) are designated at the following locations (refer to District Proposals Map) in order to protect the distinctive and vulnerable landscapes and the assets associated with the natural and historic environment of the following areas: •

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Islandmagee East and Whitehead

C3 & CE1

C3, CE1, CE2, CE3.

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) •

Slemish Mountain

•

Eastern Garron Plateau and Scarp Slopes

•

Knockdhu, Sallagh Braes, Scawt Hill to Glenarm Headland

•

Carrickfergus Escarpment

•

Lough Beg and the Lower Bann Rover Corridor

Structures above 15m to up to 25m in Height Within all of these areas, in exceptional circumstances structures above 15 metres in height above original ground level and up to 25 metres in height above original ground level will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: a) The structure does not interrupt key views from public vantage points; b) There is a need for a structure of this height; c) There are no suitable alternative sites located outside of the designated area; and d) Appropriate mitigation measures are in place to minimise the impact of the proposed structure on the designated area.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Structures above 25m in Height Structures that exceed 25 metres in height above original ground level, will only be permitted if it can be clearly demonstrated that criteria a) – d) are met and the proposal is of such regional importance, as to outweigh any detrimental impact on landscape character, any distinctive landscape feature and/or heritage interest in the designated area. All development proposals for new structures within these areas will be required to accord with other provisions of the LDP and meet the General Policy GP1. Within Policy GP1 criterion f) any provisions which refer to buildings will also apply to structures in the context of this policy. RA018

In part incorporates PM-021

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

CS3 Areas of Constraint on high Structures

Page 97, Paragraph 5.9.20

Paragraph

Amend Paragraph 5.9.20 to read:

CE3

9.61

The aim of this policy is to ensure that those unique or distinctive features of the landscape, including key views that contribute to its character, value, distinctiveness, sense of place, and quality are protected from adverse impacts related to the introduction or proliferation of high structures. Distinctive landscape features can include landforms, natural heritage assets and historic environment assets. Safeguarding the distinctive character of these areas is important to maintain the identity of the Borough and in providing

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) opportunities for sustainable tourism growth in line with Council’s strategic priorities. RA019

RA020

In part incorporates PM-023

CS3 Areas of Constraint on high Structures

Page 97, Paragraph 5.9.22

Paragraph

Amend paragraph 5.9.22 to read:

9.61

Wind turbines and other structures up to 15m in height may be accommodated on suitable sites within these designated areas and such turbines could serve local farms and remote rural communities. Development within these parameters may be considered acceptable provided all other relevant policy tests within the LDP are met. The protection of key views of landscape or heritage assets within ACHS and their settings is particularly important. Any development proposals which individually or cumulatively prejudice the overall integrity of an ACHS will be refused.

In part incorporates PM-026

CS3 Areas of Constraint on high Structures

Page 97 paragraph 5.9.21

Paragraph 9.63

Amend wording of paragraph 5.9.21 to read:

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

CE1

Within designated ACHS there will be a presumption against development that exceeds 15m in height, for example, wind turbines, electricity pylons or telecommunication masts/equipment. There will also a presumption against other types of development that will adversely impact on landscape character, key views by virtue of their visual prominence or any distinctive landscape feature or heritage asset in the designated area. Such development could

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) potentially include overhead electricity cables or other types of energy infrastructure. RA021

RA022

RA023

In part PM-029

CS3 Areas of Constraint on high Structures

Page 97 paragraph 5.9.26

Paragraph 9.64

Amend first sentence of Paragraph 5.9.26 to read:

In part incorporates PM-031

CS3 Areas of Constraint on high Structures

Page 97

Paragraph 9.65

After paragraph 5.9.20 insert:

In part incorporates PM-032

CS3 Areas of Constraint on high Structures

Page 98 Paragraph 5.9.25

Paragraph 9.66

Remove the word ‘also’ from the first line in paragraph 5.9.25 and insert additional text to end of first sentence of paragraph 5.9.25 to read:

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

After paragraph 5.9.20

CE1

Structures that exceed 25 metres in height will only be granted permission in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that they are of such regional importance as to outweigh any adverse impact within the designated area and if policy tests a-d are met. CE3

High structures can be difficult to integrate into the landscape, particularly in landscapes that are visually highly sensitive. ACHS are, visually, some of the most sensitive areas within the Borough. Therefore, it is likely that most proposals within an ACHS will be required to be accompanied by an objective assessment that will aid Council’s analysis of any potential visual impact, with the level of detail being commensurate with the nature and scale of the proposal. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) are one example of such an assessment.

CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) For example, where the proposal is to serve a recognised telecommunications ‘not spot’ or is for essential electricity transmission or supply. RA024

RA025

RA026

RA027

RA028

PM-033

PM-035

PM-036

PM-037

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

CS3 Areas of Constraint on high Structures

Page 98 paragraph 5.9.26

Paragraph 9.67

Last sentence of 5.9.26 to read:

CS5 Antrim Coast and Glens AONB

Page 100

Paragraph 9.72

Remove the reference to ‘its setting’ from paragraphs one and two of CS5.

CS5 Antrim Coast and Glens AONB

Page 100

Paragraph

Amend CS5 criterion f) to read:

CE3

Headnote criterion f)

9.73

development proposals that are outside of, but have a visual link with, the AONB must have regard to the sensitivity of the setting and the visual relationship with the designated area.

CS8 Protection of Main River Corridors

Page 107 paragraph 5.9.50

Paragraph 9.82

Amend the final sentence of 5.9.50 to read:

CS9 Development at Risk from Land Instability or Coastal Erosion

Page 109 Policy headnote

Paragraph 9.4 & 9.85

Insert additional sentence at end of policy headnote to read:

Headnote

CE1

This policy should be read in conjunction with other relevant policies in the LDP, in particular Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development and Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure.

CE1

Access may be restricted in places in the interest of biodiversity. C4

All development proposals will also be required to meet the General Policy and accord with other provisions of the LDP and have regard to the

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Marine Policy Statement and Draft Marine Plan for NI. PART 2 General Policy for All Development GP1 RA029

PM-038 & PM-40 General Policy for all Development

Page 115, GP1 headnote

Paragraph 10.9

Safety and the Safeguarding of human health/Wellbeing Criterion d)

PM-039

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

General Policy for All Development

Page 117, Paragraph 6.1.8

CE1

Vii) Where a site is known or suspected to be contaminated developers will be required to carry out a detailed site investigation. Suitable mitigation must be identified to remediate any contaminated land and prevent potential adverse impacts. Insert into Paragraph 6.1.10 after reference to COMAH sites: Where there is a potential risk from land contamination, developers will be required to provide a detailed site investigation carried out by a suitably qualified professional. Suitable mitigation must be identified to remediate any contaminated land and prevent potential adverse impacts of the development on human and non-human receptors, land or water quality.

Page 119, paragraph 6.1.10

RA030

Add additional criterion to read:

Paragraph 10.11

Amend paragraph 6.1.8 to read:

Council will apply the latest supplementary planning guidance including current Departmental guidance within ‘Creating Places – Achieving

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Quality in Residential Developments’ (DOE, 2000) and Development Management Practice Note 12 ‘Design and Access Statements’ (DOE, 2015) Sustainable Economic Growth Policies Economic Development Policies RA031

PM-042 in part

ECD1 Economic Development in Settlements

Page 124 Headnote

Paragraph 11.1

Add to the Heading Towns to read:

CE1

Large and Small Towns Amend the Industrial Uses Section to read: Industrial Uses and Storage and Distribution Uses A development proposal for a class B2 or B3 Industrial Use or B4 Storage or Distribution Use will be permitted on land zoned for such purposes in the LDP, or in an existing industrial area, provided it is of a scale, nature and from appropriate to the location. Elsewhere within large and small towns, such proposals will be determined on their individual merits.

RA032

RA033

MEAM008 in part

ECD1 Economic Development in Settlements

Page 125,

ECD1 Economic Development in

Page 124,

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Paragraph 7.1.10

Paragraph 11.3

Amend third sentence to read:

Paragraph

Adjust paragraph 7.1.13 to read:

CE3

Where there is no town centre boundary defined within a large or small town, new business will be directed to within the urban footprint’. CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy)

RA034

RA035

RA036

PM-041

PM-043

PM-044 & in part PM-049 & MEAM009

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Settlements

Paragraph 7.1.13

11.5

Land will not be zoned for economic development purposes in our small towns both in the interests of flexibility and due to small towns being located in close proximity to main towns where we aim to focus economic development growth. In the lower tier settlements, comprising of villages and small settlements favourable consideration will be given to small scale proposals that will not compromise the LDP Spatial Growth Strategy and provided the proposal is of a scale, nature and design appropriate to the character of the settlement.

Economic Development Introduction

Page 122,

Paragraph 11.14

Amend footnote 24 to read:

ECD4 Economic, Agricultural and Forestry Development in the Countryside

Page 124, Headnote

Paragraph 11.14

Amend headnote of Policy ECD1 to read:

ECD4 Economic, Agricultural and Forestry

Page 128

Paragraph 11.15

Amend criterion i) under (d) small start-up projects to read:

footnote 24

Headnote (d) &

CE1 & CE2

For the purposes of these policies, Economic Development Uses are ‘Part B Industrial and Business Uses’ as defined by The Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015, with the exception of ‘Agricultural and Forestry Development’ in Policy ECD4.

CE1 & CE2

Policy ECD4 Economic, Agricultural and Forestry Development in the Countryside’.

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Development in the Countryside

Paragraph 7.1.25

There is a locational need. Amend third paragraph of 7.1.25 to read: The applicant will be required to demonstrate the locational need for, and the economic or community regeneration benefits, of the proposal.

RA037

RA038

PM-045

PM-046 & amend title ref

ECD4 Economic, Agricultural and Forestry Development in the Countryside

Page 129,

Paragraph

Headnote

11.16

ECD4 Economic, Agricultural and Forestry Development in the Countryside

Page 129,

Amend ECD4 Criterion f) Agriculture and Forestry Development Criterion IV) to read:

CE1

The proposal is sited beside established buildings on the farm or forestry business. Exceptionally an alternative siting away from established buildings on the farm or forestry business may be acceptable where the applicant has met criteria i-iii and also demonstrated there are verifiable site specific health and safety reasons.

Headnote

Paragraph 11.17

Amend ECD4 Criterion g) The Conversion and ReUse of an Existing Building to read:

A proposal for the conversion and re-use of an existing building for economic development use will be assessed under Policy HE8 Unlisted Locally Important Building or Vernacular Building.

Paragraph 7.1.29

The policy title should also be amended within the second sentence of paragraph 7.1.29 RA039

PM-047

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

ECD4 Economic, Agricultural and

Page 128

Paragraph

Formatting Change:

CE3

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Forestry Development in the Countryside

Headnote

11.18

Insert space to separate the final paragraph from Criterion G) and add to the start of sentence to read: In all of the above circumstances a) to g), proposals for new offices, call centres or storage and distribution will not be permitted unless ancillary to the main use. In addition, retailing (unless acceptable under Policy RET4 Rural Shops and Roadside Facilities) and commercial leisure uses will not be permitted in the countryside.

RA040

PM-048

ECD4 Economic, Agricultural and Forestry Development in the Countryside

Page 130, Paragraph

Policy RET1 Retail in Town Centres

Page 134, Policy

Paragraph 11.20

7.1.24

Amend penultimate (4th) sentence in paragraph of 7.1.24 to read:

C3 & CE1

The latter test will require evidence of the exploration of alternative sites in urban areas, and full consideration of all environmental and transport impacts.

Retail and Town Centres Policies RA041

MEAM10 in part (encompassing PM-50 & PM051)

Headnote

Paragraph 11.24

Amend Policy RET1 Retail in Town Centres to read: Proposals for retail development will be permitted within town centre (26) and small town centre boundaries where defined. For other locations, a sequential approach to site selection will be applied in the following order of preference: A) Edge of Town Centre boundary (i.e.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

C3, CE1 & CE2

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) adjoining it or normally within 300m); and B) Out of Centre locations (i.e. outside the town centre boundary but within settlement limits) where sites are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. Proposals for other town centre uses (cultural and community facilities, leisure, entertainment and businesses) shall also follow the same sequential approach. There will be a presumption to refuse a retail application outside town centre and small town centre boundaries unless the applicant can demonstrate that: a) Alternative sites within these locations are either not suitable, not viable or not available (or any combination thereof), and b) There is a qualitative and/or quantitative need for the proposal, and c) There will be no significant adverse impact on any centre within the whole catchment. All proposals must meet the General Policy and accord with other provisions of the LDP.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Amend Paragraph 7.2.14 to read: Proposals for retail and other town centre uses (27) will therefore only be considered outside the town centre or small town centre boundaries when the sequential test has been undertaken. Preference will be given to edge of centre land before considering an out of centre site provided it has been demonstrated that there is a need for retail provision and that there will be no significant adverse impact on the existing centre. Footnote 26: Until such times as the town centre boundaries may be amended through the adopted Local Policies Plan, the town centre boundaries and the commercial core designations as defined in the existing plans will be the town centre boundaries. RA042

RA043

PM-052

PM-056 in part

Policy RET1 Retail in Town Centres

Policy RE2 Retail Impact Assessment

Page 135, Paragraph 7.2.17 ‘suitability’ paragraph

Paragraph 11.26

Page 136

Paragraph 11.29

Paragraph 7.2.21

Amend second sentence of suitability section of paragraph 7.2.17 to read:

CE1

There will be a requirement to consider flexibility in the format and scale of the development proposed for the town centre and other centres. Paragraph 7.2.21 to be replaced and to read:

Factors to be addressed in a retail impact and assessment of need include: a) The impact of the proposal on trade and turnover for both convenience and comparison

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) goods traders, and the impact on town centre turnover overall for all centres within the catchment of the proposal; b) The impact of the proposal on the existing committed and planned public and private sector investment and investor confidence in the town centre (s); c) The impact of the proposals on the delivery of the planned/allocated sites and the LDP strategy; d) The impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres including consideration of the local context. This should take into account existing retail mix and the diversity of other facilities and activities; e) Cumulative impact taking account of committed and planned development, including plan commitments within the town centre and wider area; and f) A review of local economic impacts. Where town centre is referred to this means town centres, small town centres or any centre defined at footnote 26. RA044

MEAM11 (incorporating the omission of PM-053, and

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy RET2 Retail Impact Assessment

Page 136, Policy Headnote & Paragraph 7.2.19

Paragraph 11.30

Amend Policy RET 2 to read:

C3 & CE1

All applications, including extensions for retail development and town centre uses, above the

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) including PM054, PM-055 and PM-057)

thresholds identified below, must be accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) where the proposal is located outside town centre or small town centre boundaries. •

Above 750 sq.m gross external area outside Ballymena and Larne town centre boundaries.

•

Above 500 sq.m gross external area outside Carrickfergus town centre and small town centre boundaries.

Outside town centre, and small town centre boundaries, but within the towns settlement limit, permission may be granted for a small scale convenience shop which does not exceed 100sq.m gross external area, where it can be demonstrated that: a) it meets a defined local need which cannot be met within an existing centre; and b) it will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of existing centres within its catchment. The Retail Impact Assessment should provide a proportionate response to the proposal being sought and should incorporate an assessment of

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) need, impact and the sequential approach. Where proposals are considered to cause significant adverse impacts on any of the relevant criteria, or where in balancing overall impacts on each of the relevant criteria, the proposal is judged to be harmful, then it should be refused. Add the following two sentences to the end of Paragraph 7.2.19: A Retail Impact Assessment is required where a proposed extension would result in the overall development exceeding the relevant thresholds above. Where an applicant is required to undertake a Retail Impact Assessment for a proposal which is outside a small town centre boundary, then the assessment must consider the retail impact on any centre within its catchment. RA045

MEAM12 in part

Policy RET3 Retail in Page 137, Villages, Small centres Policy headnote and Local Centres

Paragraph 11.32

Amend Policy RET3 to read:

A proposal for retail development within a village, small settlement or local centre will be permitted provided: a) It is to meet a local need and which helps to sustain local communities; and b) It is in keeping with the scale, nature and design appropriate to the character of the settlement or

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) centre. Proposals for retail extensions to a local centre will have to meet a) and b) above and will only be permitted where the applicant has demonstrated the proposal is consistent with the local centres complimentary role and function to the town centres (or small town centres) in the catchment and that no adverse impact will result on those centres. All proposals must meet the general policy and accord with other provisions of the LDP. RA046

RET 4 Rural Shops and Page 138 Roadside Service Policy headnote Facilities

Paragraph 11.35

Above the last sentence within the headnote insert: All proposals must demonstrate there is no unacceptable adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of an existing centre within the retail catchment.

C3 & CE3

Remove this reference from criterion a) in the roadside service facilities section to read as follows: a) There is a clear indication of need. Tourism Policies RA047

PM-061

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy TOU2 Tourism Development in Settlements and Tourism Opportunity

Page 142, paragraph 7.3.11

Paragraph 11.39

Insert new paragraph after end of Paragraph 7.3.11 to read: Carnfunnock Country Park is adjacent to East Coast

CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Zones

RA048

PM-063 & Typo ‘Maine Valley’

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy TOU3 All Tourism Development in the Countryside

(NI) Marine proposed SPA and the former Magheramorne Quarry is adjacent to Larne Lough SPA and Ramsar site. There is potential for tourism development to have a direct adverse effect on these sites and supporting habitats, or an indirect effect through increasing recreational pressure on these sites or other marine European Designated Sites. Therefore, any tourism development that could impact directly or indirectly on a European Designated Site must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended), commonly referred to as HRA. Page 143 7.3.14

Paragraph 11.39

Insert new paragraph after 7.3.14 to read:

CE1

European Designated Sites extend along much of our coastline, through the Antrim Hills and Garron Plateau, Main Valley and around Lough Beg. There is potential for tourism to have a direct adverse effect on these sites and supporting habitats or an indirect effect through increasing recreational pressure. Therefore, any tourism development that could impact directly or indirectly on a European Designated Site must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended), commonly

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) referred to as HRA. RA049

MEAM13

Policy TOU5 Hotels, Guest Houses and Tourist Hostels in the Countryside

Page 146

Paragraph

Policy headnote

11.42

Within section c) New Build Hotel, Guest House or Tourist Hostel on the periphery of a Settlement amend iv) to read:

CE1

the development is on the periphery of the settlement, but will not dominate it, adversely affect landscape setting, or otherwise contribute to urban sprawl. Also amend the third bullet point in this section to read: •

RA050

PM-067

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy TOU5 Hotels, Guest Houses and Tourist Hostels in the Countryside

Page 147 Paragraph 7.3.20

Paragraph 11.43

an undeveloped site on the periphery of the settlement where the development could be visually integrated into the landscape.

Amend paragraph 7.3.20 relating to Replacement of an Existing Rural Building to read: Replacement of an appropriate building (s) for tourism accommodation (including use as a hotel, guest house or tourist hostel), will be favourably considered in circumstances where the environmental benefit (add footnote) of full or partial replacement will outweigh the retention and conversion of the building. The condition of the building and the feasibility of repairing and maintaining it will also be taken into account in

CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) assessing such proposals. Where the existing building is a vernacular building, structural issues will not be given substantive weight when making a case for replacement where these have arisen due to neglect of a building through lack of maintenance or failure to secure it by the current or previous owners. Evidence will be required to indicate that alternative options for stabilisation of the existing structure have been considered in efforts to retain the building. If however, evidence is submitted that clearly demonstrates that the vernacular building is found to be structurally unsound and not capable of sympathetic conversion or repair, a replacement building will be permitted for tourism accommodation. Good design is of paramount importance and redevelopment proposals must be sensitive to the rural setting and local distinctiveness. Add Footnote: See Appendix B: Environmental Sustainability Section (page 326) for examples of environmental benefit. The scale of the development will reflect the amount of benefit that will be expected to be provided. RA051

PM-065, PM-066 and PM-068

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy HOU 5, Hotels, Guest House and Tourist Hostels in the Countryside

Page 146, Policy Headnote and Page 147, Paragraph

11.44

Amend text in a) Conversion and re-use of an Existing Rural Building to refer to Policy HE8 Unlisted Locally Important Building or Vernacular Building.

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) 7.3.19

Amend to same title in first sentence of paragraph 7.3.19 and paragraph 7.3.28 as it relates to Policy TOU6-Self Catering Accommodation in the Countryside.

Minerals Development Policies RA052

RA053

RA054

PM-069

PM-070

PM-071 And DPS-144 PC003 Schedule of Corrections

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Minerals Development Introduction

Page 154, Paragraph 7.4.1

Paragraph 11.48

Amend last sentence in paragraph to read:

CE2

Minerals Development Introduction

Page 154, Paragraph 7.4.2

Paragraph 11.48

Amend third sentence of paragraph 7.4.2 to read:

Minerals Development Introduction

Page 135, Paragraph 7.4.7

Paragraph 11.55

Amend from the penultimate sentence at 7.4.7 to read:

The minerals industry is recognised in the Executive’s draft Industrial Strategy as a key economic sector of the Northern Ireland economy, accounting for an estimated 10% of GVA and employing some 84,000 people in total, of which some 40% are in geo-science jobs. CE2

In 2017 the raw value from mineral production, before minerals have been worked in Mid and East Antrim, was valued at approximately £15.1m although after processing MPANI estimate that this was worth around £65m to the district economy.

On the other hand, it is envisaged that there may be a need to review the existing Areas of Constraint on Minerals Development (ACMDs) and to consider the designation of additional ACMDs in order to

CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) prioritise the protection of those areas identified as being of particular landscape and/or environmental importance. The existing ACMD falls within the Antrim Coast and Glens Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB), and designated through the Larne Area Plan 2010. RA055

PM-072, PM-073 & PM-081

Policy MIN1 Mineral Development Extraction and Processing of Hard Rock and Aggregates

Page 156, Policy Headnote

Paragraph 11.56

Amend first sentence of Policy MIN headnote to read:

C3 & CE1

Planning permission will be granted for the extraction and/or processing of hard rock and aggregates, where Council is satisfied that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon any of the following interests: Add additional paragraph after 7.4.17 to read: Special Countryside Areas in Mid and East Antrim, both existing and proposed, are relatively limited in extent, and in line with the SPPS, are designated in recognition that they are the most exceptional areas in the Borough, wherein the quality of the landscape and unique amenity value is such, that development should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, Accordingly, extraction and/or processing of hard rock and aggregates will inevitably have a significant impact and should only be allowed in circumstances where it is of such

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) national or regional importance as to outweigh any potential adverse impact on the Special Countryside Area. RA056

PM-076 and PM077

Policy MIN1 Mineral Development Extraction and Processing of Hard Rock and Aggregates

Page 157, Policy headnote and paragraph 7.4.17

Paragraph 11.59

Remove ‘and well being’ from MIN1 criterion f) to read:

f) The safety and amenity of people living in proximity to operational sites. Remove ‘well being’ from the first sentence in paragraph 7.4.17 to read: The policy seeks to ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the safety and amenity of local communities.

RA057

RA058

RA059

PM-078

MEAM14

PM-080 (with correction)

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy MIN1 Mineral Development Extraction and Processing of Hard Rock and Aggregates

Page 156, Policy Headnote

Policy MIN1 Mineral Development Extraction and Processing of Hard Rock and Aggregates

Page 157,

Policy MIN1 Mineral Development

Page 157, Paragraph 7.4.14

Paragraph 11.60

Add additional sentence to second paragraph of headnote to read:

CE3

In such circumstances, protection of interests a – f, as outlined above, will apply.

Paragraph 7.4.16

Paragraph 11.61

Amend first sentence to read:

Paragraph 11.62

Reword first sentence to read:

CE1

Whilst there is not a general presumption against mineral development in the AONB, Council will exercise a cautious approach within this area. CE3

Any mineral development that could impact on a

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Extraction and Processing of Hard Rock and Aggregates

RA060

PM-082-PM-085

Policy MIN2 Valuable Minerals

European Designated Site must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended), commonly referred to as HRA. Page 158 Policy headnote

Paragraph 11.63

Amend Policy MIN2 to read:

Proposals for the exploitation of valuable minerals will be permitted where the Council is satisfied that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon any of the interests listed in a) to f) of Policy MIN1. Within Special Countryside Areas, permission will only be granted where the valuable mineral is of such national or regional importance, so as to outweigh any potential adverse impact on the designation. All proposals must include details relating to the restoration and management of the site in accordance with Policy MIN8. All proposals must meet the General Policy and accord with the other provisions of the LDP.

RA061

MEAM15

Policy MIN2 Valuable Minerals

Page 158, Paragraph 7.4.18 Glossary

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Paragraph 11.64

Remove first sentence of 7.4.18 and amend second sentence to read: Where metalliferous or non-metalliferous minerals licenced by DfE or Crown Estates are found and considered economically viable to extract, there

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) will not be a presumption against their exploitation in any area of the Borough, except for Special Countryside Areas. Amend definition of Valuable Minerals in Glossary at page 132 to read: Valuable Minerals: Metalliferous or nonmetalliferous minerals licensed by DfE or Crown Estates which are particularly valuable to the economy. RA062

PM-087 & PM088

Policy MIN 3 Hydrocarbons

Page 159 Headnote

Paragraph 11.68

Amend first and second sentence to read:

CE3

Proposals for exploitation of hydrocarbons through conventional or unconventional methods of extraction must comply with Policies MIN1 and MIN2. Council will apply a presumption against unconventional extraction of hydrocarbons by methods such as hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), until there is sufficient and robust evidence on all environmental impacts.

RA063

PM-089

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy MIN4 Areas of Constraint on Mineral Development

Page 160 Paragraph 7.4.28

Paragraph 11.70

Amend second sentence of paragraph 7.4.28 to read:

CE1

However, permission where it is necessary, will be dependent upon compliance with the protection of interests a-f in Policy MIN1 and Policy MIN8.

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) RA064

RA065

DPS-144 PC001 PC002 and PC004 (with ref to ‘draft’ Plan Strategy removed).

PM-091 in part

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

DPS 103 & DPS 104 District Proposal Map & Policy MIN 4

Page 160, paragraph 7.4.26.

Paragraph 11.72

Areas of Constraint on Minerals Development

Policy MIN5 Area of Salt Reserve, Carrickfergus

Mapping Correction to remove two areas of constraint on minerals development (ACMD) at Capanagh Wood and Ballybolley Forest.

CE3

Associated text revision at paragraph 7.4.26 to read: In line with the policy approach set out in the Introduction, the Plan Strategy has carried forward, with relatively minor modifications, the existing ACMD designated through the Larne Area Plan 2010. This area falls within the AONB. Aside from its exceptional landscape quality, it is designated for its nature conservation importance, particularly for birds such as hen harrier and merlin. The ACMD also includes the Boroughs only Area of Significant Archaeological Interest at Knockdhu. It should be noted that there are also other LDP policies to protect this area from development in general (refer to Natural Environment, Historic Environment and AONB Landscape Policies). Page 161,

Paragraph

Amend first sentence of paragraph 7.4.30 to read:

Paragraph 7.4.30

11.77

Where planning permission is granted for surface development in this area, and where Council perceives a risk of subsidence from either shafts or mining, an informative will be attached to the consent indicating the potential risk of subsidence.

CE3

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) RA066

RA067

RA068

MEAM16

PM-093

PM-094 & PM095

Policy MIN6 Development at Risk of Subsidence due to past or present underground mineral extraction

Page 162

Policy MIN7 Peat Extraction

Page 165,

Policy MIN8 Restoration and Management of Mineral Sites

Page 166

Paragraph 7.4.31

Paragraph 7.4.36

Policy headnote Paragraph 7.4.39

Paragraph 11.81

Amend second sentence of 7.4.31 to read:

CE1

Paragraph 11.83

Amend first and second sentence to read:

Paragraph 11.86

Add additional bullet point after the three bullets in policy headnote to read:

These areas should not be developed in the interests of public safety.

Accordingly, there will be a presumption against commercial peat extraction for new sites, extensions to existing sites and renewal of extant permissions will not be permitted. Exceptions are limited to sites where the peatland is already degraded and not reasonably capable of restoration and where there is little conservation value.

•

Other community, economic and environmental benefits.

Amend third sentence of 7.4.39 to read: Restoration of minerals development sites presents the opportunity to improve the landscape, enhance biodiversity, provide recreational and tourist opportunities or other community, economic or environmental benefits such as renewable energy.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

CE3

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) RA069

PM-096 & PM097

Policy MIN8 – Restoration and Management of Mineral Sites

Page 166 Policy headnote

Paragraph 11.89

Paragraph 7.4.39

Amended headnote criterion a) to read:

CE4

a) a programme of works linked to a timeframe for completion of restoration (or setting out a phased approach for progressive restoration where possible): After last sentence of paragraph 7.4.39 insert: Where the operator considers that it is not possible to carry out phased restoration, they should set out the justification for this.

Building Sustainable Communities Housing Policies RA070

RA071

RA072

MEAM23

PM-099

PM-100

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy HOU1 Quality in New Residential Development in Settlements

Page 174

Paragraph

Insert italic text into paragraph 8.1.14 to read:

Paragraph 8.1.14

12.2

……houses are located within a designated area. Where an applicant is required to submit a design and access statement and a design concept statement, it will be acceptable for all the relevant information to be contained in one document.

Section 8.1 Housing

Page 171

Paragraph

Amend final bullet point at paragraph 8.1.5 to read:

Paragraph 8.1.5

12.6

For proposals involving the conversion and reuse of buildings in the countryside see Policy HE8 Unlisted Locally Important Building or Vernacular Building.

Page 174

Paragraph

Amend first sentence and add additional sentence

Policy HOU1 Quality in New Residential

CE2

CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy)

RA073

RA074

PM-101

MEAM26

Development in Settlements

Paragraph 8.1.15

12.7

Policy HOU3 Residential Extensions and Alterations

Page 177

Paragraph

Paragraph 8.1.29

12.13

Policy HOU5 Affordable Housing in Settlements

Page 178

The comprehensive planning of new or extended housing areas is important to avoid piecemeal development that may result in the undesirable fragmentation of a new neighbourhood and/or fail to secure the proper phasing of development in line with Strategic Proposal SGS5 or with the delivery of necessary infrastructure or facilities. In this context it should be noted that a proposal which fails to comply with SGS5 will not be granted planning permission, irrespective of its merits under Policy HOU1.

PM-102 PM-158

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy HOU5 Affordable Housing in

Amend paragraph 8.1.29 to replace the word ‘house’ with the word ‘residential’ to read:

CE1

Applications for residential extensions and alterations raise detailed, site specific issues and each case will be assessed on its individual merits.

Policy HOU5

Paragraph 12.19

Page 179 Paragraph 8.1.38

Insert additional text after the second bullet point to read:

CE4

Where it is demonstrated that a development is not viable a reduced or alternative provision of affordable housing may be acceptable.

Policy Headnote

RA075

at paragraph 8.1.15 to read:

Paragraph 12.24

Amend paragraph 8.1.38 to read:

C4 & CE2

Prior to submitting a planning application, an

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Settlements

Glossary

applicant/developer is therefore advised to liaise closely with a registered Housing Association and the NIHE to discuss the exact mix and standard of affordable housing required in each case. Remove reference to NI within the glossary definition of intermediate housing on page 301 and replace with reference to Department for Communities as per PM-158.

RA076

RA077

PM-103

PM-104

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy HOU6 Housing Mix (Unit Types and Sizes)

Page 180

Paragraph

Amend the first paragraph of the headnote to read:

Policy HOU6 Headnote

12.29

Planning permission will be granted for new residential development of 25 or more units, or on sites of one hectare or more, where a mix of house types and sizes are provided. There should be sufficient provision for smaller homes to meet future household requirements in Mid and East Antrim. In smaller schemes the need to provide greater variety in type and size will be considered on its individual merits.

Policy HOU7 Adaptable and Accessible Homes

Page 181

Paragraph

Policy HOU7 Headnote

12.30

Insert wording into the first paragraph of the headnote of Policy HOU7 to read:

CE1, CE4

CE1

To assist with the delivery of adaptable and accessible homes, planning permission will be granted for a new dwelling, flat or apartment where the following criteria is met:

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) RA078

RA079

MEAM30

PM-105 in part

Policy HOU8 Travellers Accommodation

Page 182

Policy HOU9 Replacement Dwelling

Page 184

Policy HOU8 headnote

Policy HOU9 headnote

Paragraph 12.35

Insert Italic text into Policy HOU8 to read:

Paragraph 12.40

Remove policy section on listed dwelling from headnote.

CE2

Where a need is identified for a transit site or a serviced site, which cannot readily be met within an existing settlement in the locality, a proposal will be required to meet the requirements of criteria a to c of Policy HOU16 Affordable Housing in the Countryside. C3 and CE1

Amend headnote text related to Non listed vernacular dwelling to read: UnListed Vernacular Dwelling All proposals for the replacement of an unlisted vernacular dwelling will be assessed against this policy and the policy provisions of Policy HE8 Unlisted Locally Important Building or Vernacular Building.

RA080

PM-106 and PM107

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy HOU 16 Affordable Housing in the Countryside

Page 193, Headnote and Paragraph 8.176

Paragraph 12.47

Amend final sentence of first paragraph of headnote to read:

CE1

Planning permission will only be granted where the application is made by a registered housing association or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and where a demonstrable need has been identified by NIHE which cannot readily

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) be met within an existing settlement in the locality. Amend first sentence of paragraph 8.1.76 to read: Applications for affordable housing groups will be restricted to registered housing associations and NIHE. Open Space, Sport and Leisure Policies RA081

RA082

PM-113

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy OSL4

Page 198

Open Space in New Residential Developments

Headnote

Policy OSL5 Sport and Outdoor Recreation Facilities

Page 203 paragraph 8.2.22

Paragraph 12.67

Amend criteria iii) to read :

Paragraph 12.68

Prior to paragraph 8.2.22 insert new paragraph to read:

•

iii) it is designed, wherever possible, to be multi-functional and take account of the needs of people with disabilities or whose mobility is impaired

European designated sites extend along much of our coastline, through the Antrim Hills and Garron Plateau, Main Valley and around Lough Beg. There is potential for sport and outdoor recreation to have a direct adverse effect on these sites and supporting habitats or an indirect effect through increasing recreational pressure. Therefore, any sport and outdoor recreation development that could impact directly or indirectly on a European Designated Site must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of the

CE1

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations (NI) 1995 (as amended), commonly referred to as HRA. RA083

RA084

PM-111

PM-112

Policy OSL5 Sport and Outdoor Recreation Facilities

Page 202, Policy headnote

Paragraph 12.69

Amend title of fifth paragraph to read;

Policy OSL5 Sport and Outdoor Recreation Facilities

Page 203 Headnote

Paragraph

Amend the section on Floodlighting of Sports and Outdoor Recreational Facilities to read:

12.71

CE1

Development of Facilities ancillary to Inland Water Sports CE1

Floodlighting associated with all sports and outdoor recreational facilities will only be permitted where it meets the General Policy and accords with the other provisions of the LDP.

Section 9.0 Transportation, Infrastructure & Connectivity Transport Policies RA085

RA086

PM-114 extended for

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy TR3 New Transport Schemes

Page 218, Paragraph 9.1.26

Paragraph 13.7

Amend paragraph 9.1.26 to read:

Footnote 38 re parking standards

Page 221

Paragraph 13.14

Reword Foot note 23, 36 and 38 to read:

CE4

A guidance framework on planning agreements and developer contributions will be developed by the Council in the future. Until that time the matter of what will be required to be delivered in each instance will be agreed between the Council and the applicant on a case by case basis. CE1, CE4

Currently ‘Parking standards’ (DOE 2005) or as

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) consistency

updated. The reference to DCAN 15 ‘or as updated’ should also be added in a consistent manner throughout the document including paragraph 9.1.15.

RA087

RA088

RA089

PM-115

PM-116

MEAM32 in part

Policy TR6 Parking and Servicing

Page 222, Paragraph 9.1.40

Paragraph 13.15

Remove from the last 6 lines of paragraph 9.1.40:

Policy TR7 Provision of Car Parks

Page 222,

Paragraph 13.16

Amend first sentence in headnote to read:

Policy TR7 Provision of Car Parks

Page 222,

Paragraph 13.18

Add text to the end of criterion a) to read:

TR7 Headnote

TR7 Headnote Criterion a) Paragraph 9.1.41

Development Control Advice Note (DCAN) 11 ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ (DOE, 1991) and draft Revised Development Control Advice Note (DCAN) 11 ‘Access for All – Designing for an Accessible Environment (DOE, 2003). CE1

A development proposal for a new, or an extension of an existing public or private car park, including Park & Ride or Park & share, will be permitted where it meets the General Policy and accords with other provisions in the LDP and where the applicant has demonstrated that all the following criteria are met. CE4

or accepted by the Council, in consultation with DfI following a robust analysis provided by the applicant. Add text to the end of paragraph 9.1.41 for

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) consistency. Final sentence to read: Proposals will therefore be required to meet a need identified in the Local Transport Plan (which will incorporate a Car Parking Strategy), or accepted by the Council, in consultation with DfI, following a robust analysis provided by the applicant. Flood Risk and Drainage Policies RA090

MEAM33

Flood Risk and Drainage Introduction

Page 224, Paragraph 9.2.3 and

Paragraph 13.21

9.2.10

Amend first sentence of 9.2.3 to read:

CE1 & CE3

Within the Mid and East Antrim Council area, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Larne and Greenisland are all considered to be at significant risk of flooding. Amend paragraph 9.2.10 to refer to DfI Flood Maps NI.

RA091

PM-117

Policy FRD4 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

Page 232, Paragraph 9.2.39

Paragraph 13.29

Remove from the end of first sentence of paragraph 9.2.39:

CE3

As these are currently adopted by NI Water. Add additional text at the end of paragraph to read: Subject to all conditions being agreed and met with an Article 161 agreement, NI Water will adopt a sewer or drain which is intended to communicate with a public sewer, e.g. oversized pipes, cellular storage/attenuation tanks and storm tanks.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) RA092

MEAM34

Policy FRD6 Development in Proximity to Controlled Reservoirs

Page 235, Paragraph 9.2.49

Paragraph 13.32

Page 347 Appendix I Part C

Amend paragraph 9.2.49 to read:

CE4

Details of controlled reservoirs in the Borough are available on the Reservoir flood maps produced by DfI Rivers and are available to view on the DFI website. Omit list of controlled reservoirs from Appendix I (Part C) of dPS.

Renewable Energy Policy RA093

MEAM36

Renewable Energy DevelopmentIntroduction

Page 236, Paragraph 9.3.1

Paragraph 13.39

Footnote 42

Replace last sentence of 9.3.1 to read:

CE4

The Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 states that the Department for the Economy (DFE) must ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption is from renewable sources by 2030. The latest figures for electricity consumption and renewable energy generation are available on the energy section of the DFE website. Remove footnote 42.

RA094

PM-122

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development

Page 238, RE1 Policy Headnote

Paragraph 13.41

Remove ‘Outside of Special Countryside Areas’ from the first sentence of the Policy RE1 headnote.

RA095

PM-127, PM-128 & PM-129

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development

Page 239, Policy RE1 Headnote

Paragraph 13.4213.44

Remove the RE1 headnote section on ground C3 and mounted solar photovoltaic installations. C4

Page 240, Paragraph 9.3.10

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Remove (such as solar energy infrastructure) from paragraph 9.3.10 (fifth sentence)

C3 & C4

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) and 9.3.14

RA096

RA097

PM-123

PM-124

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development

Page 238

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy

Page 238

Development RA098

RA099

PM-125

MEAM38 in part

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy Headnote criterion c)

Policy Headnote Criterion g)

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development

Page 238

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development criterion l)

Page 239

Policy Headnote

Remove ‘outside of the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB and designated Areas of Constraint on High structures’ from fourth sentence of paragraph 9.3.14. Paragraph 13.46

Amend Criterion c) of RE1 headnote to read:

CE1

Paragraph 13.47

Amend Criterion g) of RE1 headnote to read:

Paragraph 13.48

Amend First sentence of second paragraph to read:

Paragraph 13.54

Criterion l) is replaced to read:

C) it will not unacceptably restrict public access to the countryside, or coast or recreational/tourist use of the area. C3

g) it will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on local natural resources such as air quality, water quality and quantity.

A cautious approach for renewable energy development proposals will apply within areas of the countryside that are valued for their distinctive landscape and environmental qualities and their wider settings.

C3 and CE1

For wind farm development (44), a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied properties (including temporarily unoccupied), with a minimum separation distance of not less than 500m, will generally apply. The separation distance

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) required for single turbines will be assessed on a case by case basis. RA100

MEAM39

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development

Page 238 Policy Headnote

Paragraph 13.56

Amend the fifth paragraph of RE1 headnote to read:

C4 & CE4

A proposal for the re-use, refurbishment or repowering of an existing renewable energy development, including in order to extend its lifespan, will be considered favourably subject to meeting the criteria within this policy. RA101

RA102

PM-130

PM-131

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development

Page 241

Policy RE1 Renewable

Page 241

Paragraph 9.3.18

Paragraph 13.57

Add additional text after paragraph 9.3.18 to read:

Paragraph

Amend paragraph 9.3.19 to read:

CE4

Other forms of energy generation and energy storage are now being considered on or adjacent to wind farms. The impacts of this additional infrastructure should be assessed, and considered in the design process, as should the benefits of colocating these with the wind farm. In most cases, the impacts of co-located energy generation and storage systems are likely to be limited compared to the overall landscape and visual impacts caused by the wind farm. However, in all cases additional infrastructure should be designed and located to minimise impacts, especially if they include significant structures or are likely to add to the ‘clutter’ of the landscape. CE4

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy)

RA103

Energy

Paragraph 9.3.19

13.58

The publications, Best Practice Guidance to PPS18, ‘Renewable Energy’ (DOE, 2009) and draft Supplementary Planning Guidance to PPS18 ‘Renewable Energy’ Anaerobic Digestion (DOE, 2013) (or as updated) will continue to be taken into account in assessing proposals.

Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development

Page 238

Paragraph 13.59

Amend RE1 criteria A to read:

Policy Headnote

It will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on visual amenity, or landscape character including the cumulative effect of development on the landscape; Amend criteria E to read: It will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on built heritage or on biodiversity or nature conservation (including cumulative effects).

Telecommunications Development and Overhead Cables (amend to Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure as per RA105) RA104

PM-136

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure

Page 245, Paragraph 9.4.13

Paragraph 13.66

Add additional text to the end of paragraph 9.4.13 to read: Applicants of new residential or commercial proposals should ensure such developments are future-proofed for connection or upgrade to future telecommunications including broadband and media services. Council consider this is essential to facilitate business, home-working and improving

C1 & C3

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) quality of life for all our citizens, as well as to avoid any unnecessary excavation or repeated disturbance of roads and footpaths. Council will apply the latest supplementary planning guidance including current Departmental guidance contained within Section 12 of ‘Creating Places – Achieving Quality in Residential Developments’ (DOE, 2000). RA105

PM-132, PM-134 & PM-137

Policy TOC1 Telecommunications and Overhead Lines (as amended to TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure)

Page 244

Paragraph

Amend policy title to read:

Policy Title

13.69

TEI1 – Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure.

Paragraph 9.4.14

CE1

Amend first line of TEI1 to read: A proposal for a telecommunications development or electricity infrastructure including overhead cables together with any necessary enabling works will be permitted where it meets the general policy and accords with other provisions of the LDP. Amend sub category above paragraph 9.4.14 and its second sentence to read: Electricity Infrastructure New and upgraded electricity infrastructure including poles, pylons, transformers and sub stations are vital in contributing towards these objectives but need to be balanced against the potential impacts on the environment and amenity.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Amend title of section 9.4 of PS to reflect the above changes (including PM-132). RA106

PM-133 and PM135 plus additional text insertion

Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure

Page 244 Headnote

Paragraph 13.70 and 13.71

Remove ‘Outside of Special Countryside Areas’ from first sentence of policy headnote.

C1, C3 & CE1

Remove Fourth, Fifth & Sixth Paragraphs that refer to Areas of Constraint on High Structures. Add additional sentence at end of first sentence to read: Given the height of some telecommunications and electricity infrastructure CS3 Areas of Constraint on High Structures may also be applicable.

RA107

RA108

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure

Page 244

Policy TEI1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure

Page 245

Headnote

Paragraph 13.72

Add a new penultimate sentence to headnote to read:

C1 & CE1

A proposal by a statutory undertaker for the upgrading or refurbishment of existing energy infrastructure in order to maintain energy security will be considered favourably subject to meeting the criteria within this policy. Paragraph 13.77

Additional text should be added to the justification and amplification paragraph 9.3.2 to direct the reader to the policy context for strategic energy delivery at Kilroot and Ballylumford power stations. This should refer to policies RE1, TEI1 and GP1 and the importance of promotion of a more diverse

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) energy mix in the drive to provide adequate security of supply. The policy context for natural gas infrastructure should be explicitly set out. Waste Management Policies RA109

RA110

PM-138

PM-139

Policy WMT3 Waste Disposal Sites

Page 257

Policy WMT4 Development in the vicinity of a Waste Management Facility

Page 258

Paragraph 9.6.25

Paragraph 9.6.30

Paragraph 13.84

Amend first sentence to read:

Paragraph 13.86

Add additional sentence to end of paragraph to read:

CE1

Land raising, in that it creates a new landform, has the potential to significantly impact on the landscape, natural environment and heritage assets. CE3

Applicants should familiarise themselves with the NI Water guidance ‘Development Encroachment – Odour Assessment Policy and Procedure’ available on the NI Water website.

Stewardship of our Built Environment and Creating Places Historic Environment RA111

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy HE1 Archaeological Remains and their settings

Page 267 Paragraph 10.1.15

Paragraph 14.9

Add additional text after second sentence to of paragraph 10.1.15 to state where the information can be found on the ‘wide array of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and monuments’ (referred to in second sentence) to assist in understanding of the baseline position. The HED publication guidance on setting and the historic

CE2 & CE3

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) environment should also be referred to. Cross reference the landscape assessment for the ASAI within other LDP documents. RA112

RA113

PM-157

Policy HE1 Archaeological Remains and their settings

Page 267

Glossary

Page 307

Paragraph 10.1.15

Historic Park, Garden or Demesne of Special Historic Interest RA114

RA115

PM-159

Policy HE3 Listed Buildings – Change of Use or Extension/Alteration or Conversion of a Listed Building

Page 270

Glossary

Page 309

Listed building

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Paragraph 10.1.28

Paragraph 14.11

Paragraph 14.15

Reword 4th pargaraph of 10.1.15 to read:

CE1 & CE4

In particular, the erection of masts, pylons, wind turbines and associated infrastructure, or other large scale development including large agricultural buildings may adversely impact on the distinctive landscape chararacter and historic landscape assets, including the archaeological sites and monuments. Amend glossary definition to read: CE3 An identified site of international or regional importance within Northern Ireland, included in the Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of special historic interest, maintained by the Department for Communities.

Paragraph 14.19

Replace ‘historic asset’ with ‘heritage asset’ throughout paragraph

CE1

Paragraph 14.20

Amend glossary definition of Listed Building to:

CE3

A listed building is a structure which the

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Department for Communities has included in a statutory list of buildings of special architectural and/or historic Interest. RA116

RA117

PM-145

PM-142

Policy HE6 Conservation Areas. New Build or Replacement Buildings

Page 275

Policy HE6 Conservation Areas Alterations, Extensions or Change of Use

RA118

PM-143

Policy HE6 Conservations Areas Demolition within a Conservation Area

RA119

PM-140, PM144, PM-146 & PM-147

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Historic EnvironmentIntroduction & Policy HE8 UnListed Locally Important Buildings or Vernacular Building

Paragraph 14.24

Revise wording to read:

Page 275

Paragraph

Revise wording to read:

Paragraph 3 Criterion a)

14.25

a) extensions shall be subservient to the existing building with regard to height, scale and massing, and be respectful of its form and alignment.

Page 276

Paragraph 14.26

Remove the paragraph:

Page 264, Paragraph 14.28

Change reference from Non-listed building to unlisted building throughout Historic Environment section including those listed.

Paragraph 2 Criterion a)

Paragraph 5 of policy headnote

Page 264, Paragraph 10.1.4 Page 280, Policy HED8 headnote title & paragraphs

CE1

a) the overall character and appearance of the conservation area is enhanced or preserved where an opportunity to enhance does not exist. CE3

Where it is determined that the unlisted building does make a positive material contribution to the character or appearance of the area, Policy HE4 Demolition of a Listed Building shall apply.

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) 10.1.57, 10.1.59, 10.1.60, 10.1.63 RA120

MEAM40 in part

Policy HE8 UnListed Locally Important Buildings or Vernacular Building

Page 280 Policy Headnote

Paragraph 14.31

Paragraph 10.1.57

Amend first sentence of headnote to read: All development proposals impacting on unlisted locally important buildings and/or vernacular buildings should involve the minimum intervention and should maintain or enhance the existing character of the building and its setting.

C3 & CE3

Amend first sentence 10.1.57 to read: Unlisted locally important buildings, structures or features which have a degree of architectural or historical significance but are not formally designated and can include buildings such as former school houses, churches, mills or former banks. RA121

RA122

PM-148

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy HE8 Non Listed Locally Important Buildings or Vernacular Building

Page 280

Policy HE9 Enabling Development for the Conservation of a Heritage Asset

Page 282 Paragraph 10.1.64

Policy Headnote

Paragraph 14.32

Add the following text at the end of the policy ‘In addition, proposals must meet the General Policy and accord with other provisions of the LDP.’

CE1

Paragraph 14.33

Amend second sentence to read:

CE1

It is intended that this policy will only be used as a last resort where the long-term public benefit of securing a heritage asset decisively outweighs the disadvantages of departing from other LDP policy

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) provisions. RA123

PM-149

Policy HE9 Enabling Development for the Conservation of a Heritage Asset

Page 283 Paragraph 10.66

Paragraph 14.34

Amend the first and second sentences to read:

Policy AD1 The Control of Advertisements

Page 286

Paragraph 14.37 and 14.45

Amend the first sentence of AD1 section of Advertisements and Heritage Assets to read:

CE1

Applications incorporating enabling development should be accompanied by a detailed Statement of Justification setting out the need for the proposal and the public benefit and the significance of the heritage asset. This statement should include a conservation statement or plans and sufficient, detailed financial information as is necessary to allow Council to make an informed decision upon the application.

Advertisement RA124

PM-150 & word ‘normally’ incorporated as per MEAM43

Third and Fourth Paragraph

CE1 &CE3

When assessing applications for consent for the display of an advertisement which affects a heritage asset or its setting, Council will have regard to criteria a to f above and the following considerations: Amend the first sentence of the section on Digital Advertising Screens to read: When assessing applications for consent for the display of a digital advertisement screen criteria a to f above shall apply and consent for the display of

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) a digital advertising screen will not normally be granted in any of the following circumstances: Safeguarding our Natural Heritage RA125

RA126

PM-152 with reference to ‘draft removed’

Natural Heritage Implementation

Page 297 Paragraph 11.1.7

Paragraph 15.2

Revise wording of third sentence of 11.1.7 to read:

PM-153

Policy NAT1 European and Ramsar Sites International

Page 298

Paragraph 15.3

Remove reference to Ramsar sites from first sentence and add the following text to the end of the paragraph 11.1.8 to read:

Paragraph 11.1.8

CE1

International, European and Nationally important nature conservation sites and the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB are identified in the Plan Strategy (see District Proposals Maps). CE1

Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance that have been designated under the criteria of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Accordingly, these receive statutory protection under The Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as amended). Government and the devolved administrations have also issued policy statements relating to Ramsar sites, extending to them the same protection at a policy level as SACs and SPAs. RA127

PM-155 updated by MEAM42

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Policy NAT4 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

Page 301 Paragraph 11.1.13

Paragraph 15.6

Remove the reference to the Ulster Wildlife Trust from first sentence and add (as amended) to end of sentence as per PM-155.

CE3

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Insert additional sentence after the first sentence of 11.1.13 to read: The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has key responsibility for the designation and hierarchy of sites that are of nature conservation importance and it is the Council’s role to ensure the protection of these sites through the application of policy. Additionally, Council has the power to identify and designate Local Nature Reserves (LNR). The designation of Wildlife Refuges is a matter for DAERA. Other Issues. Addendums: Glossary and Monitoring and Review (TS1 DPS-116) RA128

PM-156

Abbreviations and Glossary

Page 306

Paragraph 16.2

Add a definition for Contaminated Land to state:

CE2

As defined by the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, contaminated land is any land which appears to a district council in whose district it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that: (a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) pollution of waterways or underground strata is being, or likely to be caused;

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) and, in determining whether any land appears to be such land, a district council shall, subject to paragraph (2), act in accordance with guidance issued by the Department in accordance with Article 69 with respect to the manner in which that determination is to be made. RA129

PM-160 plus ‘across the plan area’ incorporated following hearing

Monitoring & Review – Technical Supplement 1

Environmental Objective a)

Paragraph 16.11

Monitoring Indicator 22

Insert indicator under Restriction of development on open space:

CE3

Target: No more than 1 application permitted per year within zoned open space areas across the plan area. Review trigger: More than 1 application permitted in any one year on zoned open space across the plan area.

RA130

PM-161

Monitoring & Review – Technical Supplement 1

Environmental Objective (e)

Paragraph 16.13

Monitoring Indicator 26

Amend to read:

CE3

Target: No demolition of listed buildings approved over a five year period contrary to advice received from DFC Historic Environment Division. Review Trigger: More than one application for the demolition of a listed building permitted in any one year contrary to advice received from DfC Historic Environment Division.

RA131

PM-162

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Monitoring & Review – Technical

Environmental Objective (g)

Paragraph 16.16

Indicator: 31(a) The amount of energy (MW) by technology type produced from renewable sources.

CE3

Appendix 6 Recommended Amendments (Revision A - typographical corrections and text insertions from plan strategy) Supplement 1

Monitoring Indicator 31

Source: MEA Planning decisions Relevant Policy/Proposal: General Policy (e) and RE1 Indicator:31(b) Commercial Peat Extraction Source: MEA Planning Decisions Relevant Policy/Proposal: General Policy (e) and MIN7 Target: No development contrary to policy provisions. Review Trigger: More than one application not constituting an exception to the policy approved in any one year.

LDP/2021/MEA/PS

Annex 1 – Justification and Amplification for CS3 Encompassing Commissioners Recommended Amendments CS3 Areas of Constraint on High Structures The justification and amplification text for Strategic Spatial Proposal CS3 Areas of Constraint on High Structures (pages 97 and 98 of the draft Plan Strategy) should read as follows inclusive of the Commissioners recommended amendments: Justification and Amplification 5.9.17. Within the rural area of Mid and East Antrim some areas can adequately accommodate the development of public utilities and high structures without unduly compromising visual amenity and local character. However, in line with the SPPS it is important to identify those landscapes which are distinctive and vulnerable to this particular form of development, and to apply a cautionary approach in the determination of such proposals. 5.9.18. The areas designated under this policy are supported by the evidence contained in the Landscape Character Assessment within Technical Supplement 10 Countryside Assessment. 5.9.19. Landscape impacts are defined as changes in the fabric, character and quality of the landscape as a result of the development. Visual impacts relate solely to changes in available views of the landscape, and the effects of those changes on people. This includes the impact on visual amenity as enjoyed or experienced by receptors – for example from a main transport route, a settlement or a tourist attraction. The definition of all these designated areas is therefore informed not only by inherent landscape quality and character, but also by the views available from the main receptor vantage points. 5.9.20. The aim of this policy is to ensure that those unique or distinctive features of the landscape, including key views that contribute to its character, value, distinctiveness, sense of place, and quality are protected from adverse impacts related to the introduction or proliferation of high structures. Distinctive landscape features can include landforms, natural heritage assets and historic environment assets. Safeguarding the distinctive character of these areas is important to maintain the identity of the Borough and in providing opportunities for sustainable tourism growth in line with Council’s strategic priorities. 5.9.21 High structures can be difficult to integrate into the landscape, particularly in landscapes that are visually highly sensitive. ACHS are, visually, some of the most sensitive areas within the Borough. Therefore, it is likely that most proposals within an ACHS will be required to be accompanied by an objective assessment that will aid Council’s analysis of any potential visual impact, with the level of detail being commensurate with the nature and scale of the proposal. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) are one example of such an assessment. 5.9.22. Within designated ACHS there will be a presumption against development that exceeds 15m in height, for example, wind turbines, electricity pylons or telecommunication masts/equipment. There will also a presumption against other types of development that will adversely impact on landscape character, key views by virtue of their visual prominence or any distinctive landscape feature or heritage asset in the designated area. Such development could potentially include overhead electricity cables or other types of energy infrastructure. 5.9.23. Wind turbines and other structures up to 15m in height may be accommodated on suitable sites within these designated areas and such turbines could serve local farms and remote rural MEA/LDP/Appendix 6 Annex (i) J&A for CS3 encompassing RAs

communities. Development within these parameters may be considered acceptable provided all other relevant policy tests within the LDP are met. The protection of key views of landscape or heritage assets within ACHS and their settings is particularly important. Any development proposals which individually or cumulatively prejudice the overall integrity of an ACHS will be refused. 5.9.24. The height of turbines or other such infrastructure relative to other structures in the landscape is a key consideration in terms of landscape ‘fit’. The 15m threshold is considered appropriate because this relates well to the size of the existing buildings in the landscape, including typical farm buildings. A single turbine of this height is most likely to be used to contribute to the energy needs of a residential house, farm or other rural based small business. It is relatively easy to accommodate in the landscape, if sited to cluster with existing buildings. Such turbines are also more easily screened or concealed by low ridges and undulating landform and tree cover. 5.9.25. Minimising the sustained visibility of micro-turbines helps limit detrimental cumulative visual impacts. Therefore, it is preferable to site on the leeward sides of ridges and prominent hill slopes, rather than on summits and high points. In circumstances where the scope for concealing and screening turbines is limited, providing broad consistency of turbine design, height and location can help mitigate against potential visual impacts. 5.9.26. The policy allows for structures above 15 metres but less than 25 metres in height in circumstances where there is a need for height and where it is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternative sites outside of any designated area. For example, where the proposal is to serve a recognised telecommunications ‘not spot’ or is for essential electricity transmission or supply. Such cases will be assessed on their merits. While due account will be taken of technical reasons for exceeding the 15 metre threshold, the infrastructure provider will also need to justify why an alternative site outside of the designated area is not feasible. The lack of land ownership outside of the designated area will not of itself be regarded as sufficient justification in this context. 5.9.27. Structures that exceed 25 metres in height will only be granted permission in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that they are of such regional importance as to outweigh any adverse impact within the designated area and if policy tests a-d are met. All proposals for structures exceeding 15 metres in height must demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place to mitigate the impact of the development in the designated area. This policy should be read in conjunction with other relevant policies in the LDP, in particular Policy RE1 Renewable Energy Development and Policy TEI 1 Telecommunications and Electricity Infrastructure.

Note: Paragraph numbers differ from those in DPS from paragraph 5.9.21 on to reflect PM-031 which inserts a new paragraph

MEA/LDP/Appendix 6 Annex (i) J&A for CS3 encompassing RAs