Councillors have voted to overturn the ABC Planning Department’s recommendation to refuse an application for the retention of modular homes near Loughgall for the housing of 60 seasonal workers.
Members of the Planning & Regulatory Services Committee meeting on November 4 considered an application to retain 13 modular homes for a period of five years and the proposal to add five more to the site.
The site has been developed over the last two years, without prior planning permission, by Gilfresh Produce Ltd on the Ballytyrone Road to house “transient” workers brought in under a Seasonal Workers Scheme.
The company subsequently sought approval for the retention of 13 mobile homes on the site, alongside permission to install a further five with two containers for plant, electric, washing, drying and bin storage etc.
During the course of an hour-long discussion, members heard that the company had been bringing in workers under the scheme to address “inadequate labour supply”. The workers could be brought in for six months during any 12 month period.
Companies utilising the scheme have a requirement to supply suitable accomodation for employees.
Roisin Hamill, for ABC Planning Department explained the application was largely recommended for refusal based on it not meeting policy in regards to it being considered residential accomodation in the countryside.
She also said the company had failed to demonstrate that it is essential to have the development on its current site and that it could not be located within a settlement.
However, council have received almost 70 letters of support from various businesses and individuals in support of the scheme.
There were, however, objectors to the application. One objector attended the committee meeting to air her concerns.
She reminded members that whatever decision they made would have a “lasting impact on the local landscape and community” before informing them that “up to 60 people were being housed within a rural back lane the width of one car”.
She said those living on site had to walk at least one mile to the nearest bus stop and asked how the company planned to “look after the recreational and health needs of the workers.”
Among her concerns, the objector said the site was essentially a “caravan park” and that she believed Gilfresh were trying to “circumvent” the planning process by submitting a retrospective application for retention.
She also said she had experienced trespassing issues, anti-social behaviour and had concerns for the lack of 24-7 security, pollution, potential for vermin and additional human sewage.
Lauren Coulter from Bell Rollston spoke in support of the application, explaining that the company had assessed the local area for appropriate HMO accomodations, but found there to be a lack of provision.
She said all objections and points raised by Planning had been considered and responded to by the applicant and that all consultees in the process raised no objections.
The most significant point raised by the agent was that Gilfresh’s future depended upon the site remaining operational.
According to Ms Coulter, the company has invested close to £1 million in developing the scheme and, if refused, it would present a real risk of redundancy of those 60 seasonal workers.
The company, she said, are a main supplier of vegetable produce arcoss Northern Ireland and have contracts in place which reduce the need for importation of produce.
Cllr Kyle Savage enquired with the applicant about the seasonal nature of the work and whether this was year-long or for portions of the year.
Mr Gilpin, the applicant, explained that their work is “intense” covering every month in the calendar, moving from their pumpkin crop which has just finished to “sprouts” now for Christmas, as an example.
Cllr Peter Lavery then asked a series of questions including whether or not the applicant needed a “gangmaster’s licence”, if the workers had access to recreation and whether only HMO provision had been assessed or if other rental options were explored before erecting the modualr homes.
Ms Coulter explained that as Gilfresh were not gangmasters, a licence was not required. She also stated that other rental options had been explored but due to the number of seasonal workers and the bedroom requirements, this was an extremely difficult task with the well-noted shortage of housing in the area.
Mr Gilpin also informed members that the company arranges weekly recreational activities off-site for workers and monthly trips to various places across Northern Ireland.
Ms Hamill, speaking on behalf of the Planning Department, advised members that if they were minded to approve the application, they may be able to consider the addition of a condition whereby the applicant would have to seek futher approval for retention in a certain number of years. This is in line with the “temporary” nature of the proposal.
Cllr Scott Armstrong then requested further information from the objector in regards to the “anti-social” behaviour aforementioned.
The objector advised members that she had concerns the workers could not be adequately “policed” by the company while outside of working hours and while in their “homes”.
She described one instance where a worker had to be allegedly escorted off her property when he was found eating lunch on the grass. To this she added: “He probably thought he was doing no harm and from his point of view it was probably his escape from a prison.”
At this juncture, the objector also cited concerns surrounding safeguarding measures for employees and said, “we don’t know these people, who are these people and what are these people?” I don’t know the breakdown between male and female, but you also have vulnerable adults here and safeguarding issues, this is a whole new ball game.”
Mr Gilpin in response to the allegations said he lives on site with his family and grew up on the family farm right beside the facility.
“These staff all come through the Seasonal Workers Scheme and are all vetted before they come in. We are indebted to them. Without them we would have no produce for local supermarkets and it would have to be imported.
“We are in a unique situation and it is probably only ourselves in Northern Ireland supplying supermarkets with a wide range of vegetables. Without this, we would probably have to cease our contracts.”
Mr Gilpin added to his representations by stating that without the modular home scheme business “would not be viable”, some 60 members of staff would face redundancy, a £4 million crop would fail and 350 indirect local suppliers would be impacted.
Cllr Gordon Kennedy remarked, “I think this is a case of being stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. I think it’s more or less a last option for the firm to have these workers available.”
Equally, Cllr Kyle Moutray said it “weighed heavily” on him that this business could be “decimated” by refusal.
Following lengthy debate between members, Cllr Scott Armstrong proposed a move to overturn Planning’s recommendation to refuse, and approve the retention of the scheme with the condition that the objector’s concerns were taken onboard and reacted to.
Cllr Julie Flaherty then seconded the proposal. However, Cllr Peter Lavery proposed to keep with Planning’s recommendation and refuse permission.
As such, the decision was put to vote.
Lord Mayor Stephen Moutray then announced the outcome of the vote was seven votes in favour of overturning Planning’s recommendation, one voted against and six abstained.
The decision was then taken to approve retention of the facility.
