Revised proposal for new nursing home in Lisburn rejected
A Lisburn developer has failed in its latest bid to secure permission to build a new nursing home in the city.
North Lisburn Development Consortium Ltd's eight-year-old attempt to secure approval for its three-storey care facility on Lady Wallace Drive has been rejected by the Planning Appeals Commission.
The company, which has been behind a series of residential developments across Lisburn, originally launched the bid for the nursing facility in 2011.
A report published by the Planning Appeals Commission on Friday said that while the principle of the facility at the location is acceptable, the scale of the development would cause "unacceptable damage to the character, environment and amenity of the area".
The report also listed potential flooding risks as reasons for the appeal's failure.
It said that "it has not been demonstrated that the development would not be at risk from flooding and would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere".
The original planning proposal in 2011 stated the care home would cater for 102 patients with around 50 staff.
Please log in or register with belfasttelegraph.co.uk for free access to this article.
This was revised in 2016 to 88 patients and 43 staff as North Lisburn Development Consortium sought to downsize the planned home to obtain approval.
The total proposed floor space also fell by 17% from 5,108 sq m to 4,230 sq m.
Lagan Valley DUP MLA Paul Givan was among a number of objectors both at the time of the initial application and subsequent proposals.
He objected on behalf of residents of Lady Wallace Drive and cited concerns related to the size of the structure, flood risks and safety hazards due to the increase of traffic in the area.
North Lisburn Development Consortium also made an appeal for a partial award of costs against Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council after the plans were rejected, but this was denied.
They complained that the deliberation of the council's planning committee was "devoid of any reasons or explanation to assist them to understand the rationale for "overturning" the case officers' recommendations and going against the views of DfI Roads and DfI Rivers, neither of which had objected".
This was rejected as although the commissioner accepted that the council behaved unreasonably in certain respects, "it had not been demonstrated that this has led to a material increase in the workload of the appellants' planning consultant, their roads engineer or their legal advisers".