Infill dwelling and garage at Approx. 40m SW of 22 Syonee Road, Fintona

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for an infill dwelling and detached domestic garage.

“This is an outline application for a site for an infill dwelling and detached domestic garage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was in the countryside between existing properties, with roadside hedging, limited mature vegetation and a large gap between nearby buildings.

“All proposals for development in the countryside must also comply with the Development and Design policies: DE04 – Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside, DE05 – Rural Character and DE06 – The Setting of Settlements. All development proposals for buildings in the countryside must also cluster, consolidate and group new development with existing established buildings.”

“Policy DE04 – Integration and Design of Development in the Countryside Development in the countryside will only be supported where compliance with the listed criteria can be demonstrated. In this case, the site does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed building without resulting in harm to visual amenity. There is only a low roadside hedging and limited mature vegetation.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier application for a domestic dwelling was withdrawn, and a related infill dwelling and garage application to the north was recommended for refusal.

“Application Number: K/2000/0986/O Proposal: Domestic Dwelling House Decision: Withdrawal: May 2001”

“Application Number: LA10/2026/0022/O Proposal: Proposed infill dwelling and garage (outline application) This application has been recommended for refusal and is included as Paper B – Application No 05 on the Planning Agenda.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that the proposal would not integrate into the landscape, would erode rural character, was not a small gap and would create suburban ribbon development.

“Furthermore, when considered alongside the proposal to the south (LA10/2026/0022/O), the development would create a ribbon of roadside dwellings, resulting in six consecutive properties. This would further erode the dispersed rural settlement pattern that the policy seeks to protect.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

DfI Roads had no objection subject to information at reserved matters stage, while NI Water supported the proposal subject to conditions and confirmed a nearby public water main.

“DfI Roads has advised that it has no objections subject to a planning condition that a scale plan and accurate site survey at 1:500 (minimum) shall be submitted in the event of an approval as part of the reserved matters application showing the access to be constructed and other requirements in accordance with their attached form.”

“NIW has recommended approval subject to conditions. As these do not meet the tests of a condition they will be attached as informative advice and NIW have been contacted by the case officer to notify them of this. NIW also advise that there is a public water main within 20m of the proposed development boundary which can adequately service this proposal.”

Officer report

The supporting speaker

The supporting speaker said the proposals matched nearby plots, could retain vegetation, and would be suitable for only two dwellings.

Members’ discussion

The planning officer explained that satisfying infill tests did not automatically overcome impacts on rural character and important visual breaks.

“In response to comments from the Speaker, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the nuancing of the relevant Planning Policy and that it was not written so that if there was a substantially built up frontage and a small gap that an infill would automatically be approved as it would not affect the rural character.”

“In respect of plot frontages, the Principal Planning Officer stated that No.29 on the site location plan showed a frontage of 63m, however, it narrowed considerably towards the back of the site. He highlighted that the Planning Consultant had failed to consider the two dwellings on the opposite side of the road which were on relatively modest sized plots, which he stated were part of the locally distinct settlement pattern and must be taken into account.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused for the four reasons concerning countryside integration, rural character, infilling and the important visual break.

“As the proposal is contrary to policies HOU13, DE03, DE04 and DE05 it does not further sustainable development and is contrary to SP01. For the reasons listed within the report the application is contrary to the Plan Strategy and there are no other material considerations to indicate that it should be approved contrary to the Plan. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons.”

“The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy SP01 - Furthering Sustainable Development and Policy DE03 - Sustaining Rural Communities, Policy DE05 Rural Character and Policy HOU 13 as the site is an important visual break between existing buildings in the landscape and the proposed development will result in a suburban style of build-up of development when viewed with existing buildings.”

Officer report