Toomebridge 37-home development refused after 176 objections

Site plan for proposed 37 home development in Toomebridge, refused by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council

Tuesday, 4 August 2026

A proposed residential development of 37 new homes at Loughview Drive in Toomebridge has been refused planning permission by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council’s Planning Committee following significant local opposition, including 176 objections.

The application sought permission for nine detached houses, 18 semi-detached houses and 10 apartments, together with landscaping and access roads, on land approximately 90 metres from St Oliver Plunkett Church.

Mayor backs objectors

Speaking at the meeting, Antrim and Newtownabbey Mayor, Councillor Henry Cushinan, said the level of local opposition was so strong that he felt “compelled” to support residents’ objections.

He told the committee that the council had received 175 letters of objection, with a further objection submitted ahead of the meeting, bringing the total to 176. He also said a petition containing more than 1,000 signatures had been presented but was rejected on what he described as a “technicality”.

Councillor Cushinan outlined the history of the site, explaining that a “grand” house and its gardens had been bequeathed to the church for the benefit of the parish. He said the property later fell into disrepair before being demolished, with the rubble used in the construction of the church car park.

He claimed the “majority of people in the parish” oppose the current proposal.

“My objection is solely with this proposal,” he said.

“It is the wrong scheme in the wrong place. The amenity of the residents of Loughview Drive, a cul-de-sac of 11 homes, will be massively impacted by 37 new premises.”

He also said residents of Carlane Crescent and the surrounding area have long used the site as recreational open space.

“Local people believe that a community centre is a necessary local facility and would like to see part of this site used for that purpose,” he added.

Housing need acknowledged

Antrim SDLP Councillor Roisin Lynch asked whether Councillor Cushinan believed additional housing was needed in Toome.

“Without doubt, there is need for more housing in Toome and there are a number of schemes currently underway,” he replied.

Ballyclare DUP Councillor Jeannie Archibald-Brown also asked whether he was concerned about parking pressures.

Councillor Cushinan said access through the existing Loughview Drive estate, together with additional vehicle movements, would create problems for residents.

Community concerns

Speaking on behalf of objectors, community worker Una Johnston stressed there was “absolutely no objection to housing being built”, noting that there are “at least 38 people” on the local housing waiting list.

“The issue is the loss of this greenfield site and the permanent restriction that this will place on any further development for community, church or schools in our very growing village and surrounding area,” she said.

She urged councillors to consider the long-term needs of the village before reaching a decision.

Developer defends scheme

Planning agent Dermot Monaghan described the proposal as “a high-quality development that respects important features of the natural and built environment”.

He said the scheme would include substantial areas of public and private open space, along with housing designed to reflect the character of the village.

Addressing concerns over parking, Mr Monaghan said there would be two spaces for every house, 14 unallocated spaces for apartments and additional on-street parking.

He also said around 20 per cent of the site would remain as public open space, including a link to the Toome Canal Walk, arguing that the development would improve local recreational provision.

Parking debate

Ulster Unionist Councillor Robert Foster pointed to the planning officer’s report, which referred to an “11-space deficiency” and described the parking arrangements as “sub-standard and inadequate”.

Mr Monaghan argued that the report referred to the maximum parking standards rather than mandatory requirements.

“There is no parking shortage here,” he said.

“The guidance is guidance. The standards aren’t set in stone. The level of parking proposed is more than adequate. A refusal reason based on parking would be outrageous.”

Councillor Lynch also asked whether any community consultation had been carried out before the application was submitted.

Mr Monaghan said he was unaware of any consultation, explaining that the proposal fell below the threshold requiring formal pre-application community consultation.

When asked whether he was aware of the scale of local opposition before the application was lodged, he replied: “Not before the application was submitted.”

Responding to a question from Councillor Foster, Head of Planning Barry Diamond told members the proposed parking provision met the overall requirements for the development.

Committee vote

A proposal by Threemilewater DUP Councillor Sam Flanagan, seconded by Macedon DUP Councillor Ben Mallon, to approve the application was defeated after four members voted in favour, seven voted against and one abstained.

Councillor Foster then proposed refusing planning permission, seconded by Threemilewater Alliance Alderman Tom Campbell.

Members agreed to refuse the application on the grounds of inadequate NI Water infrastructure, uncertainty over the adoption of the proposed sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and sewerage infrastructure, inadequate parking provision, and the loss of open space.

The motion to refuse planning permission was carried by seven votes to four, with one abstention.