Infill dwelling and garage at Approx. 30m N of 29 Syonee Road, Fintona

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

“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.”

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

“Application Number: LA10/2026/0023/O Proposal: Proposed infill dwelling and garage (outline application) This application has been recommended for refusal and is included as Paper B – Application No 06 on the Planning Agenda.”

“Impact on Rural Character The third test in Paragraph 2 is that infilling will be permitted where the proposed site will not detract from the rural character. The rural character test in HOU 13 is similar to the policy tests in DE05 ‘Rural Character.”

“1.Is the site an important visual break between existing buildings on the landscape? The phrase a ‘visual break’ is not defined in the Policy. Paragraph 4.5.1 of Buildings on Tradition provides useful guidance on what a ‘visual break’ is.”

“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.”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor Irvine, seconded by Councillor Maguire, and unanimously agreed, that the above application be refused planning permission, for the four reasons listed within Paragraph 12.0 of Appendix 6. (LA10/2026/0022/O – H Bell – Paper B)”