Plans to develop a £3 million EuroSpar filling station at the foot of Tandragee town have been deferred after residents complained of bin storage facilities being located just metres from their home.
The development is due to create 10 new jobs and had been recommended for approval at this week’s ABC Council planning committee meeting.
Instead, the official’s recommendation has been put on ice, to allow further information to be be sought in how refuse on site will be stored and managed.
It was a lengthy discussion and debate which preceded the decision to defer, as residents were granted speaking rights at the meeting and representatives of the Henderson Group were also on hand to have their say.
The proposals involve the demolition of the former Hamilton Hardware unit at 30 Mill Street.
Outbuildings at the rear of the former hardware store would also be demolished to make way for the planned extension, with alterations proposed to the “rear private amenity space” of residential units at 32 and 34 Mill Street.
There would be alterations to the existing forecourt to make way for the petrol filling station, which would take the form of a “single pump island forecourt”.
And the number of parking spaces would increase from 41 to 48. The parking would comprise 44 spaces which includes two EV charging spaces and two staff spaces, as well as two more parking bays at the petrol pumps and two ‘waiting’ spaces.
The newly-branded EuroSpar would offer floorspace in excess of 7,800 sq ft, the majority of which would be for retail sales.
The site will continue have two accesses, one from Mill Street and one from Gilford Street. Both would continue to be two-way in/out accesses.
It is also intended to widen the Mill Street access to “improve manoeuvrability”.
Because there were objections from more than four addresses – and the application had been recommended for approval – it had been referred for consideration to the planning committee.
Residents, living in the property at Old Mill Court which is located closest to the development, were given the mandated three minutes to outline their objections.
They indicated they were “quite happy with the development”, but it was the perceived effects on their own personal amenity space and fears for health and safety which brought them to object.
One resident, Jennifer, explained: “What we’re not happy with is the proposed positioning of the waste bins directly against our residential property. We feel it’s a threat to health, amenity and safety.
Jennifer also raised fears about vermin and disease, pointing out that refuse attracts rats and insects known to spread illnesses such as leptospirosis, salmonella and listeria.
In addition, she warned of a fire hazard, saying external bins can be a target for arson and pose a direct risk to nearby properties.
While European guidance recommends bins be kept at least six metres from buildings — and insurers suggest ten — the proposals place them less than five metres away.
She said the cumulative risks of nuisance, disease and fire could be avoided by relocating the bins or housing them in a secure, fire-resistant enclosure.
And she also expressed concern for their only outdoor space, which is used by children and pets, fearing it would be “turned into a waste zone”. Although an acoustic fence was proposed, Jennifer argued it would block sunlight from their garden, leaving the area “completely unusable”.
The Henderson Group were of the opinion that the “proposed development won’t have any unacceptable impacts”.
An agent representing the retail group said the development represented a £3m investment in Tandragee by the Henderson Group.
“It will create 10 jobs and some £150,000 worth of additional salaries and £15,000 of additional rates income,” he explained. “It’s an investment in and improvement of this well-established town centre shop.
“The application has been subject to a range of appropriate assessments – access, parking, noise, lighting, ecology, drainage. It has been a thorough planning process over the last year and a bit and the statutory consultees all have no objections.”
Having listened to the residents’ concerns at the meeting, the agent added: “The bin area will be secure, locked, surrounded by a two metre fence and there’ll be another fence between the property and the residential property. The bins obviously will be secure commercial bins and the site will be managed well in accordance with the Henderson Group protocols.”
A direct representative of the Henderson Group said they had been operating a store in Tandragee since April 2019.
“We’ve invested significantly – in the region of £1.6 million – in the store since our refurbishment and extension back in 2021,” he said.
“We remain committed to the growth of the store and in mid-2023 we acquired adjacent properties to allow further investment into the store, both in terms of store size and provision of fuel.
“We plan to invest a further £3 million in our Tandragee store which will bring our total investment in the Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Council area to £16.1 million over the past five years.”
DUP Alderman Gareth Wilson said he “shared the objectors’ concerns”, while also flagging his own over parking and road safety, and asking if there was “willingness to compromise” on the layout of the development to address concerns over the location of the bins.
But Sinn Councillor Kevin Savage, chairman of the committee, pointed out: “We can’t during this planning committee change the planning application. We have to assess what’s in front of us. We can’t make any amendments to the plans that have been presented. We can’t make changes to this application during this committee. It would have to be withdrawn and resubmitted.”
The retailer’s agent reiterated that the Henderson Group believed the proposals to be “acceptable” and they “do work and have been through a thorough process”.
But Alderman Wilsoon advised Gareth Wilson: “It’s within this committee’s power also to defer an application if we so desire.”
He said if “very reasonable concerns from the residents, for instance weren’t , weren’t addressed, then I think it’s reasonable for us to say we think you should go away and try and reach some sort of compromise”.
While accepting this was a “live application” before committee, Alderman Wilson there had been occasions in the past where officers have “gone away and made alterations and put conditions on applications and then brought them back the following month”.
Sinn Fein Councillor Mary O’Dowd pressed the Henderson Group team on whether or not there had been any communications with the residents of the area.
The Henderson Group said there had been no direct engagement, although bin management and environmental health measures were in place.
Councillor O’Dowd said that “maybe a wee bit of communication with the residents” might have “helped with this situation” and advised: “You should be able to tell them if there’s something you could change or something you could help with. It might have helped in these circumstances. So maybe going forward you would consider the residents around the areas.”
Head of Planning Damian Mulligan suggested a possibility to look at adding a condition along the lines that details of how the refuse area would be managed should be “submitted to and approved by council and thereafter implemented”.
Ulster Unionist Alderman Gordon Kennedy echoed concerns and told the Henderson Group team: “Juggling the interior layout of your yard wouldn’t be a major change to plan. It could be quite easily done if they could compromise to keep the residents happy. The residents obviously living close are going to be customers of the people involved. If we can keep the locals happy it would be a lot easier.”
Ulster Unionist Councillor Julie Flaherty said she was of the opinion there was “nothing here that cannot be overcome”, suggesting the possibility of a “wee bit more discussion” on a condition that would give the residents a “wee bit more comfort”.
Alderman Wilson continued: “I just think there’s an opportunity here for an issue to be addressed with the help of us here at committee. Because that’s what we’re here to do. We’re not just here to rubberstamp stuff and go have a nice day. That’s not my job at all. We’re here to represent the people and we’re here to do a job for planners as well. How willing are the applicants to meet the residents concerns here who, from their own mouths, appear to be pretty supportive of the general direction of this development?”
The Cusher representative also asked was it possible to have the bin storage covered and would that be acceptable as a ‘halfway house’ to residents, was it “something that could be conditioned now or would it involve a whole re-consultation?”
“I wouldn’t like to think if a roof over something helped that we would put a whole application through the mill again just to put a roof over some bins,” he said. “But that mightn’t be acceptable to the residents. This is what I’m trying to do, trying to come to some sort of compromise.”
Councillor O’Dowd put that to the residents, asking: “If there were conditions put on regarding bins being covered and things like that would that help in your situation where your family’s concerned?”
But another resident, Jacob, came back, accusing the Henderson Group of promising to fix a fence blown down in the storm in January while nothing had happened.
“They haven’t done so,” he said. “They haven’t stuck to their word.”
Producing pictures, he described the view as “terrible” and added: “Unfortunately that view’s now moving three times closer into the south-facing side of our property.
“It’s not a well-kept area at the moment so there’s no promise that it will be in the future.”
Councillor O’Dowd attempted to asked the Henderson Group why a fence which, it was claimed, had been blown down in January had not been fixed by October.
But committee chair Councillor Kevin Savage warned: “We need to really stick to planning matters here. I think we are drifting off. If I need to seek legal advice then I’ll go into committee to do that.”
During a 10 minute period seeking legal advice, the public were excluded from confidential business.
But when restored, the issue of parking was next to be aired, and against it was Alderman Gareth Wilson who had questions from DfI Roads official Val Russell.
“It’s not a stretch of the imagination to say that with the addition of petrol pumps there’s going to a greater influx of cars entering and exiting the site,” he said. “You will be aware, I’m quite sure, of the issues at the minute, particularly at Mill Street, at the main entrance, and the cars parking on each side.
“I know going back maybe a decade or more there was a good bit of lobbying went on and bollards were placed outside the houses on Mill Street to assist with preventing, particularly tractors and lorries, from parking up on top of the kerb, which were literally a foot away from residents’ windows.
“We now have the real prospect of that continuing on the other side of the road on a higher level and also on the housing side of the road where the bollards don’t exist. I’m just wondering in terms of your surveys and your input into this what mitigation can be foreseen that will help reduce that, particularly when you’re trying to get out of the site and the cars are blocking your visibility on each side?”
The DfI official said enforcement was a matter for police.
“The application was assessed on the scale and nature of it so the parking has increased, the access has been improved,” said Mr Russell.
“The current situation on Mill Street is an enforcement issue for the PSNI or the Department if there was restrictions put down.
Unfortunately if you put restrictions down at residential areas the residents can’t park there either, so it’s a no-win situation.
“At the present time people can park freely on the street. If they park in a manner which obstructs you or obstructs traffic then it’s a PSNI matter to enforce.”
Alderman Wilson explained that the development site was “not a sprawling area of ground”, describing it as “quite contained”.
But he said while planning officers were “signalling their contentment”, it did not “address the fact that there are issues for residents and road users”.
He said DfI were understandably using their regulations and markers to allow development to proceed, but he warned committee members had to be “cognizant of what this means in real time for people living there and users of the site”.
Added Alderman Wilson: “In general sense of the word it’s investment in Tandragee and that’s really, really positive, but there’s still issues I think we need to address and maybe bits of information that might be useful to know before I would be able 100 per cent content with this.”
Ulster Unionist Councillor Julie Flaherty said she shared concerns and agreed that there were “outstanding issues” and she too would not be “100 per cent content either”.
“We do need a wee bit more information and a wee bit more time,” she stated.
Alderman Wilson, in making a formal move on the application, said that while it was “positive for Tandragee”, there was “room for some further clarity”, and he proposed deferring to allow officers to “better understand the refuse area and the management plan around that.”
“I think it would be useful if we could have a bit more information on what that looks like going forward, based on what we’ve heard tonight, and particularly from an amenity perspective from the residents who are closest,” he added.
Seconded by Councillor Flaherty, it was agreed that the application be deferred.
