Drainage condition variation at 40 Ballymena Road, Doagh, Ballyclare

What was proposed

The application sought to change the drainage completion condition attached to permission for an extension to a vehicle accident repair centre.

“PROPOSAL Extension to vehicle accident repair centre (Variation of condition 2 from approval LA03/2024/0507/F regarding completion of drainage)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is at 40 Ballymena Road within Doagh’s development limit, with buildings, an access, boundary fencing and the Doagh River nearby.

“The application site is located at No. Ballymena Road, Doagh and is within the development limit for Doagh as designated in the draft Newtownabbey Area Plan (dNAP) and the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (dBMAP) 2004.”

“The application site is accessed from a point off the Ballymena Road that is located centrally along the northern boundary of the site. To the east of the entrance point is a stone wall of less than one metre in height, with a 2.5-metre- high concrete post and wire fence to the west of the entrance. This fencing also defines the rear and southern boundary of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Previous permissions covered workshops, extensions, car repair and sales, and vehicle accident repair centre extensions at the site.

“Proposal: Extension to vehicle accident repair centre Decision: Permission Granted…”

“Proposal: Extension to vehicle accident repair centre Decision: Permission Granted…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposed wording could allow the unit to operate before drainage mitigation was installed.

“The applicant wishes to amend condition 02 to allow for the mitigation measures as shown on the drainage layout to be finished prior to the completion of the previously approved extension. However, there is no statutory timeframe for the completion of the approved extension, it could essentially be occupied and left ‘almost’ completed with the amended condition allowing the operational use of the unit without the mitigation measures ever being in place.”

“Ramsar/SPA, and it is recommended that permission to vary this condition is not granted.”

Officer report

The drainage concern

The drainage condition was imposed to protect connected European sites from potentially polluting discharges reaching the adjacent watercourse.

“Following an Appropriate Assessment and having considered the nature, scale, timing, duration and location of the project, SES advised that whilst there is a watercourse along the eastern boundary of the application site, there are existing buildings on site between the area of the proposed extension and this watercourse, creating a buffer of more than 10 metres.”

“With regards to the operational phase of the development, SES considered that there was the potential for polluting discharges to enter the adjacent watercourse and travel downstream to the SPA, impacting on designated sites. The mitigation measures as shown on the drainage layout (Drawing Number 098, date stamp received 14 January 2025) were considered to be adequate in providing sufficient measures to protect the aquatic environment.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

No consultation was carried out, six neighbouring properties were notified and no representations were received.

“Six (6) neighbouring properties were notified of the application, and no letters of representations have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A senior planning officer introduced the planning report, and no public speakers addressed the committee.

The committee vote

Members proposed and seconded refusal, which was agreed unanimously with 11 votes in favour and none against or abstaining.

“Proposed by Councillor Bennington Seconded by Councillor Cosgrove that Section 54 planning permission be refused.”

“On the proposal being put to the meeting 11 Members voted in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, and it was unanimously agreed…”

Minutes

The decision

Section 54 planning permission was refused because adequate protection for designated nature conservation sites had not been demonstrated.

“The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy DM 37 of the Council’s Plan Strategy in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal offers adequate protection to designated sites of nature conservation importance.”

Minutes