One rural dwelling at 60M East of 64 Lisnamuck Road, Maghera

What officers recommended

Refusal was recommended because the proposal failed countryside policies on cluster development, infill, integration, rural character and biodiversity.

“The application was assessed under both policies with the proposal failing CTY 2a as the identified site does not provide a suitable degree of enclosure and is not bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster. The development of the site cannot be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation and will significantly alter its existing character or visually intrude into the open countryside.”

“…integration. The proposal fails CTY 14 as the proposal does not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in the area. The proposal is also contrary to policy NH 5 of PPS 2 as a Biodiversity Checklist has not been completed. This was not requested as the principle of the development was not established but if committee were minded to approve the proposal a Biodiversity Checklist should be completed.”

Officer report

Why the site was unsuitable

The site was considered too large and open for a single infill dwelling, unable to round off the cluster and out of keeping with nearby plots.

“Figure 2 – Crossroads north-east of the site The most notable point under which the proposal fails CTY 2a is that the site is not bounded on at least 2 sides with development in the cluster. As discussed above the derelict dwelling is not within the cluster so the site is only bound on one side by development within the cluster (housing development).”

“Figure 3 – View of site from Drumconready Road. Housing development behind camera The proposal would not round off the existing cluster, and a singular dwelling could not be absorbed on this site. The frontage of all 10 dwellings along Lisnamuck Road measures 100m. The frontage on Lisnmauck for this proposal for one dwelling is 109m.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

DFI Roads raised no objection subject to conditions, while Northern Ireland Water recommended refusal because of the wastewater treatment works and sewer requirements.

“…completed by a suitably qualified person. If planning committee were minded to approve the application a Biodiversity Checklist should be requested. The proposal fails NH 5 of PPS 2. A biodiversity checklist was submitted by the applicant with no boxes ticked as yes, meaning part 3 was not required to be completed. The proposal is considered acceptable under policy NH 5.”

“NIW were consulted as the application is proposing to connect to mains and they have recommended refusal as an Odour Encroachment Assessment was needed. The site falls within the proximity of an existing Wastewater treatment works. Environmental Health were contacted and provided that there have been no complaints and there appears to be dwellings located closer to the Wast water treatment works than the proposed site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning officer presented the application and advised the committee that refusal was recommended.

The decision

The committee refused the application on the grounds stated in the officer’s report.

“Resolved That planning application LA09/2026/0160/O be refused on grounds stated in the officer’s report.”

Minutes