Amended submission to that submitted on 22nd October 2014.
Further to a review of Planning application A/2014/0487/F validated by the department on
3rd October 2014, we write in objection to the application.
As parents of children being educated at Broad bridge Primary School we were alarmed at
the Department’s decision to approve the filling station development submitted under
A/2012/0327/RM. The scale of the development cannot be justified, this within such close
proximity to a primary school with an enrolment of 409 pupils has created the following
issues and challenges to the school for years to come.
1. Negative impacts on the general school environment.
2. Negative impact on the amenity space used by children
3. Noise pollution on both classrooms and external amenity space.
4. Substandard proposals for pedestrians.
5. Noise from car wash
6. Pollution from vehicles.
7. General pollution.
8. Security of existing school.
9. Security of children
10. Privacy and child protection issues
11. Health and safety issues.
The Department has failed to consider the location of numerous classrooms positioned on
the boundary with the filling station site. This has led to teachers and children having to
work under unacceptable conditions and tolerate higher than acceptable noise levels within
these classrooms and the main school building during both the construction process and
when the station becomes operational. The decision to accept the applicant’s proposal to
form a landscaped embankment and acoustic fencing falls well short addressing fully all of
the issues outlined above. The Department has been made aware of the applicant’s decision
to ignore condition 3 on the Planning decision notice for A/2012/0327/RM which required
them to complete the landscaped buffer and acoustic fencing prior to proceeding with any
other works. The applicant’s contractor commenced works in July 2014 and to date some 16
weeks later has failed to comply with this condition.
The applicants proposal to site a large scale vehicle washing system within metres of
existing classrooms despite the Departments concerns on their file note dated 22.11.2013
further demonstrates the lack of consideration by the applicant to the negative impacts
their development plans will have on the school environment. The department’s decision
should have been to refuse the application with the vehicle wash in its current position and
would have been fully justified in doing so.
The scheme approved under A/2012/0327/RM outlines various underground fuel storage
tanks located in close proximity to the school. Can the Department demonstrate that
Hazardous Substances consent was sought under this application and if information was
provided by the applicant for consideration by the Department.
The above issues represent the general opinion of parents of children at the school as well
as many people in the local community when you consider that the applicant should have
explored other more suitable sites. Failure by the applicants to procure a better site for the
relocation of the existing Maxol station should not have been allowed to be material
consideration in the Departments decision to grant permission on this site. The
Departments decision to approve outline application A/2009/ 0472/O dated 9th November
2011 was poorly considered and could be viewed as a concession to a large Oil Company.
The current application A/2014/0487/F represents part of a phased strategy by the
applicant to expand on the development approved under A/2012/0327/RM. The applicant is
looking to increase the size of the retail floor area considerably in excess of the area
approved under A/2009/0472/O by building an extension. This extension cannot be justified
and the Department should consider their comment on condition 4 on the outline approval
where they looked to ensure that the comparison function of neighbouring town centres
are not adversely affected by this development. It is worth noting that the scheme the
Department approved under A/2012/0327/RM represents as much as 50% of the existing
retail floor space in the existing convenience stores in Eglinton Village and therefore cannot
be justified.
The applicant has proceeded and built the extension which is now at an advanced stage of
completion. This approach by the applicant can only be viewed as them being extremely
confident of a successful outcome under the current application.
Another area the applicant is looking to expand is the area of hard standing / parking for
large lorries. This represents a considerable expansion of the footprint of the filling station
site presently approved under A/2012/0327/RM and a considerable extension of the
development along the common boundary with the school. The Department needs to
consider that this proposal will further escalate the real issues outlined under items 1-11.
above. This expansion is not necessary and cannot be justified.
The location of the pedestrian footpath outlined in red on the drawings submitted with the
application is not adequate to service pedestrian movements to this filling station. The
location as proposed represents a very real and dangerous situation for both the Primary
school and the wider community as the current proposal is encouraging general pedestrians
and children into the filling station site who in turn will decide to exit the station on the
opposite end into the line of a busy and dangerous road junction. The Department needs to
ask the applicant to amend the current proposal to reflect a safe pedestrian link along the
frontage of the station that safely connects into the existing foot-way network with the
onus on the applicant to ensure that they control the necessary lands to deliver the foot
way.
It is the responsibility of both the applicant and Department to ensure that a robust solution
is in place for pedestrian movements. The applicant agreed to deliver a foot-way connection
along the site frontage prior to the application A/2012/0327/RM being approved. It was the
responsibility of the Department to follow proper process to ensure that this issue integral
to the application as a whole was addressed to their satisfaction before proceeding to
approve the application, which may have required the applicants to review their proposals
landownership, planning forms Planning boundary which in turn would have required the
Department to re-advertise the application.
We ask that the Department addresses this key issue by following proper process under this
application.
The Department’s determination of this application should be a refusal. Under this refusal
the Department should look to impose a limit on both the size of the retail building and area
of hard standing to prevent any future expansion of the Development approved under
A/2012/0327/RM. The Department should ensure that there is no foot-way connection onto
the section of the Coolafinny Road serving the Primary school and insist on the applicant to
deliver a proper foot-way connection along the site frontage. Furthermore the Department
must ensure that the Filling station does not open to the public until such times as a
satisfactory Foot-way connection has been completed to include the landscaped
embankment and acoustic fencing along the boundary with the Primary school.
We would be grateful if the Department can confirm receipt of this submission and if we can
be kept updated on the Department’s appraisal of this application.
Kind Regards,
Damien and Regina Logue
3 Riverview Glen Eglinton
BT47 3GN.