A major housing development of 115 homes in Craigavon – where there is “high demand” for housing – has been approved by Council… with no recommendation for social housing provision.
The application was submitted to Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Council in February 2024 by John Curran of Roxborough Plant and Construction Limited and relates to lands north-east of Tullygally Road, located adjacent to Tullygally Youth Centre just a short distance from Brownlow Integrated College.
The development would consist of 15 detached homes – nine of which would include garages – and 100 semi-detached homes, of which 62 would include garages.
They would be a mix of two storey and three storey properties with between three and four bedrooms each.
It would also include public open space, a children’s playground, estate roads and paths and the construction of retaining walls and other associated site and access works.
A total of 308 parking spaces would also be developed comprising 230 “in-curtilage spaces” and 78 visitor parking spaces.
However, the scheme would also seek to “encourage non-car modes of transport” due to the close proximity of shops, services and community facilities and the location of public transport routes.
The site earmarked for development was previously occupied by a housing development which has now been demolished, with the lands now regarded as “derelict brownfield”.
A Planning Statement accompanying the application explains that the derelict nature of the site has made it “attractive for anti social behaviour” and that redevelopment of the site has been “welcomed by the local community” during the community consultation exercise.
The application fell under the ‘Major Development’ category as it was classed as a residential development where “the site area is or exceeds two hectares and the number of units is or exceeds 50”.
During the meeting members put several questions to the project’s Architect and Agent.
Starting, Alderman Kennedy asked if any of the development would be earmarked for social housing and also enquired about NI Water’s recommended for refusal on November 19 and if it being addressed.
Replying to the social housing query the agent said they had been in contact with the social housing agencies and were informed that “there is no requirement for social housing in the area”.
With regards to NI Water’s recommendation to refuse, he said a drainage engineer had been in ongoing contact with NI Water to agree a drainage assessment but that it’s “ongoing at the moment”.
Senior Planning Officer, Kyle Elder spoke to clarify, adding: “In terms of key site requirements there was no key site requirement for social housing… so that would be a matter for the developer to decide but as Planning we couldn’t insist upon it.”
He added they were aware of NI Water’s “negative response” and have “followed through” on procedure outlined by PSE which means they “cannot carry out any works until planning are satisfied that sewage can be properly handled”.
In terms of social housing, Mr Curran claimed there was a “resentment” in relation to the site.
It was, he said, formerly a social housing site and an NIHE housing site.
He said because it was previously a social housing site, which had been sold and changed between private and public sectors, “doesn’t fit well in with the agenda”.
Said Mr Curran. “I think there’s a resentment. We did offer it to housing associations and there was a definite ’no’ because it was previously a social housing site.”
Alderman Kennedy then stated that, he had recalled Councillor Haughian “going bananas that there was a lack of social housing in the area” and said that with such a large development of over 100 houses, he was “curious”.
Chairing the meeting, Cllr Kevin Savage agreed with the sentiment but said it “wasn’t the place to debate the need for social housing” but that they “could talk all day about it.”
Returning to the need for social housing, Cllr Mary O’Dowd also said she “can’t understand how Housing Associations have told you there is no requirement” and said that was “just my own views” but that she would “chase it up” at Thursday’s meeting.
According to the Planning Statement on behalf of the applicant, the development would not only be a “welcome investment” but would constitute a major construction project that would introduce construction employment to the local area.
Cllr Julie Flaherty commended the applicant, agent and architect for the ways they had incorporated the open spaces and the “rights of a child to play” within the scheme adding: “The play park looks really good and I’m very pleased to see so many inclusive pieces of equipment because that’s often an afterthought in many of these plans.
“You have a number of key pieces there but – again just for clarity – it does say that those facilities – did I read this right Chair? – prior to the occupation of the 25th… so when you get a certain amount built and occupied those spaces and play park will be put in place?”
The agent replied light-heartedly: “If that’s what the planning condition says then that’s what we have to do!” Laughing, he added: “I’m sorry I can’t answer that any other way!”
Proposing approval Cllr Paul Duffy said he was happy to propose and added it was “great to see this site being brought back into housing again”.
The proposal was the seconded by Cllr Sórcha McGeown and Chair Cllr Kevin Savage wished the representatives “all the best” with their scheme.
