Planning permission for modular homes for Gilfresh seasonal workers in Loughgall approved

The application, which was listed for determination at the November 4 meeting of the committee, relates to land owned by the company in the vicinity of 25 Ballytyrone Road, Loughgall.

Principal Planning Officer, Roisin Hamill told committee members: “This application seeks planning permission for the retention of 13 modular homes and five additional modular homes, two containers for plant, washing, drying, toilets, bin storage area, hardstanding and landscaping.

“Permission is being sought for a temporary period of up to five years.

“The applicant has advised that, in order to address an inadequate labour supply, they have been utilising government schemes such as the Seasonal Worker Scheme and the Skilled Worker visas, which allow them to hire overseas workers for up to six months in any 12-month period. A requirement of the Seasonal Worker Scheme is to supply suitable accommodation for employees.

“The economic benefit statement submitted in support of the application advises there’s not sufficient local HMO accommodation to meet current labour requirements. The existing provision within the local area has been exhausted and, in their view, the erection of on-site temporary accommodation to support additional labour provides a solution to accommodation issues.

“Officers consider that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal is essential at this rural location and has failed to demonstrate overriding reasons why the proposed development is essential and could not be located within a settlement.

“Officers are recommending that planning permission be refused.”

Objecting to the planning application was local resident Ruth Spence. She told committee members: “The creation of this village for transient workers will double the current number of residents in a lane where already local people have been turned down for planning for single homes.

“Bear in mind the sheer scale of this development would be like agreeing to build a fixed modular caravan park within Loughgall or a brand-new housing development.

“It is a totally inappropriate development in a rural setting which sets a precedent for other businesses in the area to seek to do further developments on their site.

“You are going to have safeguarding issues, trespassing issues, antisocial behaviour. You’ll have pollution, you’ll have vermin, you’ll have human sewage.”

A spokesperson for the applicant was then given an opportunity to address committee members.

She listed the following reasons as to why she deemed the proposed development to be essential: “One, a lack of accommodation. Despite screening a 10-mile radius, unfortunately the HMO stock does not exist.

“Number two, immediate redundancy of seasonal workers that would be avoided by granting permission.

“Three, delivering on contractual obligations with major retailers.

“Four, supporting growing local produce contracts that otherwise were previously imported.

“Five, significant support, with almost 70 letters of support from businesses.

“Six, sustainability benefits. At the 2023 committee for a previous seasonal worker scheme, it was ruled that having on-site staff reduced travel and carbon footprint.

“And finally, number seven, it is a temporary development and will be conditioned to use only by Gilfresh.”

While the Principal Planning Officer acknowledged that a strong economic case had been made in favour of the proposed development, she argued that Planning officers were being asked to approve a residential development in the countryside, which is against current planning policy.

She commented: “They’ve applied for temporary permission, but we don’t know how long seasonal workers are going to be needed for. What happens in three years’ time? They’ve already said that a lot of investment has gone into this site. After three years’ time, does that necessarily stop and it reverts back to a field? We don’t know.

“So, we’re looking at this as residential accommodation. It’s in the countryside and really we think the whole thrust of planning policy is that residential accommodation of such a size and scale should be located in our towns and villages and centres, where people that live in them can make use of all existing services, transport, etc. That is the thrust of planning policy.

“There is nothing in our policies that allows for this scale of residential development in the countryside.

“I accept that this is a business and I accept that it would be much more convenient and cost-effective to have their workers on site, but in our view that doesn’t set aside the concerns we have with regard to the impact on the countryside and the fact that it’s contrary to planning policy.

“The SPPS does talk about supporting sustainable economic growth, and we must balance the need to support job creation and growth with protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural environment.

“And that’s what our policies are for. That’s why we have policies to control residential use in the countryside and other uses in the countryside.

“So, it is a balance. Yes, there’s land that’s zoned for economic development use, and I accept that there’s economic development use out here, but at the same time it is still in the countryside, and we have to consider that and consider the impacts of the scale of residential development in the countryside.”

After an exceptionally long debate, Councillor Scott Armstrong (DUP, Armagh DEA) proposed the following course of action: “I propose that we overturn the officers’ recommendation for refusal and we approve this application on the basis of the economic points that we have discussed previously and the impact it could have on the business.

“This will obviously come back next month with conditions. If we do, then [we should] look at maybe some of the points that the objector had raised around safeguarding and things like that. I think that there is a middle ground here.”

Concurring with the Armagh representative, Councillor Julie Flaherty (UUP, Portadown DEA) said: “I must agree with Cllr Armstrong, and I’m therefore happy to second his proposal to overturn this on the basis of operational need, and I also agree [on having] a discussion regarding some conditions in the next month or two, just to build in some safeguards for residents if that’s necessary.”

By way of clarification, Head of Planning, Robbie McNaugher explained: “Just around the conditions, if you’re minded to overturn this, that could be something we could bring back and we could look at a management plan to address some of those issues that have been raised.”

Councillor Peter Lavery (Alliance, Lurgan DEA) on the other hand, recommended going along with council officers’ recommendation to refuse the planning application.

He commented: “I would differ with the proposal that’s before us. We are not operating in a policy vacuum. We have a lot of policies and we have to consider this under those residential policies.

“In my time, there’s been hundreds of residential applications in the countryside refused because they don’t meet planning policy. And obviously this was maybe one of those, potentially the biggest in terms of the number of dwellings.

“In this case, 18 residential dwellings, which [would have] an overriding negative impact on the rural character and rural setting and so on.

“I do acknowledge the economic reasons, but in my view we have to go with what we’ve been doing for the last 12 years since these powers have come to Council. So, I propose that we accept the officer recommendation to refuse in this case.”

Cllr Lavery’s proposal, however, was not seconded.

A vote was then taken on Cllr Armstrong’s proposal to overturn the Planning officers’ recommendation to refuse the planning application.

There were seven votes in favour, one against, and six abstentions. The planning application was consequently approved.