Farm dwelling and garage at 60m North of 242 Irvinestown Road, Trory, Enniskillen

Earlier farm applications

Earlier applications included a refused farm shed, a withdrawn farm shed proposal and an approved farm shed.

“Planning History Application Number: LA10/2019/0612/F Decision: Permission Refused Decision Date: August 2019 Proposal: Farm shed for storage of machinery…”

“Proposal: Farm shed comprising of 2 No. foaling stables, laying-in area for cattle, farm machinery and winter fodder storage areas…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Water, archaeology, farming and roads consultees were content with the proposal, with roads support subject to conditions.

“NI Water response published 26th March 2026 responded stating that they approve with standard conditions, as there is a public water main within 20m of the proposed site which can adequately service this proposal. Their response includes suggested standard planning conditions. NI Water have been advised by the Council that these conditions do not meet the tests of planning conditions and therefore cannot be added as conditions to the decision notice.”

“DfI Roads response published 14th April 2026, offer no objections subject to compliance with conditions.”

Officer report

Objections received

Two objections challenged the farm dwelling justification, siting, rural character, landscape impact and possible precedent.

“Failure to Comply with CTY 10 (Dwelling on Farms) The proposed dwelling is physically and visually detached from the existing farmyard, being located at a considerable distance from the original farm buildings and instead positioned within open countryside closer to the lakeside. This siting fails to demonstrate any meaningful functional or visual relationship with the farm holding.”

“Inappropriate Siting and Impact on Rural Character (CTY14 & CTY15) The proposed dwelling is located away from the established roadside pattern of development and accessed via an extended laneway. This form of development is inconsistent with the existing settlement pattern and represents a form of backland development, which would erode the rural character of the area and contribute to ribbon development.”

Officer report

Information before the committee

The Lead Planner said an agent’s addendum raised new material considerations and that objectors should have an opportunity to comment.

Why members deferred it

Members proposed deferral so officers could consider the addendum and objectors could review and comment on the new information.

“The Lead Planner advised Members that an addendum to the supporting statement had been received from the agent in advance of the meeting. He stated that this addendum raised new material considerations that Officers must consider and to allow any objectors the opportunity to comment on the information.”

“A Member proposed that the application be deferred, and this was seconded by another Member.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The deferral was proposed, seconded and agreed unanimously by the committee.

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor O’Reilly, seconded by Councillor Thompson, and unanimously agreed, that the above application be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to allow Planning Officers the opportunity to consider an addendum to the supporting statement submitted by the agent and afford the objectors the opportunity to review and comment on the new information received. (”

Minutes