Pole mounted CCTV cameras at 18 Ballyblack Road, Newtownards

“The cameras had been installed to monitor activity across the stable block, yard areas and surrounding agricultural fields within the applicant’s ownership, ensuring the security of the farmstead and observing the movement and welfare of animals on the premises.”

“16a, and the other situated to the rear (east) of the stable block. The cameras were positioned on an existing pole and, given their limited scale and massing, were not considered to result in undue dominance or overshadowing of the neighbouring property. It was explained that there was a separation distance of approximately 40 metres between the cameras and the rear boundary fence of the neighbouring property.”

“An image captured from the CCTV cameras was also displayed to Members, with the applicant’s consent, showing views across the sand school area and fields beyond. This had confirmed the limited extent of coverage, and, in professional planning terms, it had been considered that the cameras were neither overbearing nor intrusive. It had also been noted that elements of the image had been digitally screened to ensure the privacy of the neighbouring property.”

“It was also confirmed that the application met the policy even without the digital screening in place. The Officer advised that the camera was non rotational and the 40m distance was not considered intrusive under the policy. The grey shaded area shown in an earlier image did not cover the neighbour’s dwelling and it was the outbuilding that was blocked out.”

“He stated that the cameras were active every day and visible at night because the lights were on. He and his family felt constantly watched as a result. They kept their blinds tilted all week. They avoided using the back toilet. They did not hang washing outside. They avoided spending time in their back garden. He spoke of the impacts it was having on his extended family life. A grandchild was due soon and the family felt they could not live normally.”

“Alderman McIlveen asked if there were ever any animals kept in the field and [name withheld] recalled that previously there had been horses but stated the field had been unused for the last two years. Councillor Smart referred the speaker to the images that had displayed the camera’s coverage and the speaker advised that he had not seen these before.”

“Councillor Morgan did not believe that it would be possible to ensure the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring residents and did not believe that digital screening could be reliably enforced. Alderman McIlveen, as seconder, believed that the application failed Policy EXT1(b) as it would unduly affect the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring property.”