The following letter has been sent to the Divisional Planning Office by Greyabbey & District Community Association in response to the Proposed Area Plan.

Mr T J Clarke Divisional Planning Manager Divisional Planning Office Rathkeltair House DOWNPATRICK BT30 6EA Dear Mr Clarke, 20th January 2003 RESPONSE TO ARDS AND DOWN DRAFT AREA PLAN Following the publication by Planning Service of the Draft of the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015, Greyabbey and District Community Association have carried out an extensive consultation exercise within the Greyabbey area to establish the feelings of local people and elected representatives regarding the plan, with a view to making a considered response to the draft Plan. Our approach to this has involved: (1) Sending two members of our committee to an evening seminar about the plan proposals in Downpatrick on Thursday 12th December, run by East Down Rural Community Network with Community Technical Aid. The meeting was also attended by Pat Rooney of your staff. (2) Holding a committee meeting on 16th December at which all the issues affecting Greyabbey were identified from the Plan documents. (3) Publishing a précis of the Plan proposals that affected Greyabbey and district together with copies of the relevant maps. These were published in the Newtownards Chronicle "Greyabbey Notes" and copies were placed in three local shops and in the Village Hall in Greyabbey from 23rd December 2002 onwards. (4) Holding a public meeting in the Wildfowler Inn in the village on 6th January 2003 at which all the issues affecting Greyabbey were discussed and a response to the Plan proposals arrived at. 27 local people attended this meeting. (5) Members of the Community Association environmental sub-committee attended a meeting with Ards Borough Council's Director of Development, Derek McCallan, the Council Planning Officer, Kevin Gillespie and the chair of the Council's Development Sub-committee, Cllr. Hamilton Gregory on Wednesday 8th January 2003 in order to hear their views on the draft Plan. Our responses laid out below, therefore are a distillation of the outcome of all these meetings, and while it is impossible to encompass the views of everyone in the district, we are confident that our submission broadly reflects the views of the local population. The issues identified as affecting Greyabbey and District were as follows: (1) Less land than previously zoned for development: the 3 fields, previously zoned for building between the last house in Church Street and the cemetery lane have been left out of the new plan, as have the 2 fields that slope down from the hilltop to the backs of No's 16-24 The Chanderies. The Community Association has no objection to this: there was an element of over-zoning in the previous Area Plan and the fields that have been "re-zoned" are those that were least suited to development. (2) The only significant site proposed for development in Greyabbey is the part nearest the Newtownards road of the field immediately adjacent to the Village Hall grounds (shown coloured red on the map and marked HPA2) This amounts to about 2.5 - 3 acres. The Community Association has some concerns about this field being developed due to its lough-side location and the possibility of views of the Lough being obstructed or reduced. This field, formerly shoreline, is in an area of potential archaeological value as Greyabbey Bay was an area of settlement from the earliest times, as illustrated by the archaeological finds already made in the Greyabbey Bay area. The Community Association is also aware that there has already been an application for housing on this site which was in the face of considerable opposition withdrawn. At our public meeting on 6th January 2003 a communication from Alderman Kieran McCarthy Local Councillor and MLA was read out which reflected his views on HPA2 as a site for development and indicated that these views would be included in the Council's response to the Draft Plan. The development site identified by Ards Borough Council for Greyabbey as being more suitable for development is the area on the opposite side of the road, specifically the field immediately to the north east of No's 50-52 Strangford View and 12 - 16 The Chanderies At the public meeting the feeling was that the area HPA2 would be more suitable for development on the basis that although not the preferred site it had the advantages of only 2-3 acres being zoned which outweighed the risk of a much larger development. In subsequent discussions at this Public Meeting the following points were made: (a) A view was put that there was already sufficient private housing in the village to satisfy needs at present and fears were raised about the ability of the school to cope with any increase in the number of children. (b) It was generally agreed that if there was to be private housing on site HPA2 that is was important that this should be single storey and screened by planting from both the road and from the Lough. There is a second, much smaller area at 31 Main Street proposed as HPA 1. The Association would be concerned that this site should not just be available for housing: commercial use may be just as appropriate on this site due to its proximity to the commercial "core" of the village. A major concern raised at the public meeting was than any new development should include an element of social housing. Proposals are currently underway for a small infill social housing scheme in the Main Street aimed at satisfying current need identified by NI Housing Executive. (3) All of Main Street and Church Street, plus the two churches and their manses on the Newtownards Road, plus nos 1 and 2 North Street are proposed as an "Area of Townscape Character". In terms of its restrictions, this status is one step down from a Conservation Area but still imposes limitations on what can be built there and how existing buildings can be treated. More importantly, it is intended to lead to ultimate designation as a Conservation Area "as and when resources permit". The Community Association recognises that there are some objections to the proposal and feels strongly that prior to any official designation of the status "Area of Townscape Character" full consultation, with implications, needs to be presented in detail to the people directly affected in a timely and much more professional way than the previous proposal for Conservation Area status. (4) There are three "Local Landscape Policy Areas" proposed at Greyabbey: the Rosemount Demesne, the Cottage Hill and the high ground to the north of the Main Street, extending to and including lower lying ground on the Newtownards Road side of the village. In these areas there is a presumption against development of any sort that would damage the landscape value of the sites. The Association is particularly pleased to see that their earlier representations to the Planning Service regarding these areas have been incorporated in the Plan. (5) All of the Ards Peninsula is now proposed as Green Belt due to the pressure for development in the countryside caused by the proximity to Belfast and Newtownards. Green Belt policy only allows development in the countryside where a need can be shown: i.e. a farmer needing to live close to his fields etc. It will no longer be possible for farmers to sell off sites for one-off development. The Association recognises that there is a need to control the mushrooming of detached dwellings in the countryside, particularly in areas of scenic value such as the Ards Peninsula. Some members of the farming community are concerned that they may not be able to build retirement dwellings or houses for other family members. Concern was expressed at our public meeting that Green Belt policy might mitigate against re-use of redundant agricultural buildings as anything from light industrial/commercial units to holiday letting accommodation The Association would ask, therefore, that Green Belt policy be implemented with due regard to the value, in both employment and farm diversification terms, of redundant farm buildings. We would emphasise that this should apply only to brown-field sites and not green-field development proposals. Finally, the Association is still very seriously concerned about the traffic on the A20 Shore Road. The overall proposals for all the settlements in the Ards Peninsula could allow for as may as 1000 new dwellings. While there is very little land zoned for development in Greyabbey, there are substantial areas proposed in Portaferry, Ballyhalbert and Cloughy. Much of the traffic generated by these developments will come through Greyabbey daily. The Plan contains no proposals whatever to improve roads in the Peninsula. We share the Council's opinion that detailed proposals for the improvement of the Peninsula roads must proceed in a co-ordinated manner with any proposed new development. Some positive suggestions were made at our public meeting in respect of action that could be taken in the short to medium term to improve the roads, particularly the A20. Ideas included higher sea walls (to reduce the deposition of seaweed on the road at high tide in stormy weather), additional crash barriers, provision of passing places where tractors and other slow moving vehicles could pull off the road to allow following traffic to overtake (this is particularly lacking on the southbound carriageway). Another constructive suggestion made was to reduce the very heavy charges made for buses, private and public, on the Strangford ferry - at present these are high enough to force coach operators to go round the long way via Newtownards. To conclude, therefore, Greyabbey and District Community Association would like to congratulate the Planning Service on the production of the new draft Area Plan: it is obvious that a great deal of consultation has gone into the document and a great deal of background research; far more than in previous Area Plans. We have some concerns, shared with Ards Borough Council, over the Housing Policy Areas within the village and would ask that these be addressed in the final Plan Document, and in particular that no green field development be permitted until the issues raised by ourselves and the Council have been fully debated. In addition we would demand that proposals for improvement of the roads and other infrastructure in the Ards Peninsula are brought forward on a timescale to coordinate with the housing development proposals. Yours sincerely, Greyabbey and District Community Association.