Replacement dwelling and foundations at 105M East of No 138 Limehill Road, Pomeroy

The site and surroundings

The site is excavated countryside near Gortacladdy and Pomeroy, with concrete foundations and a rural mix of farmland, homes and outbuildings.

“Case Officer Report Site Location Plan This material is based upon Crown Copyright and is reproduced with the permission of Land & Property Services under delegated authority NIMA CS&LA581 from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright and database rights.”

“…is rural in character, predominantly comprising agricultural land, with a scattering of dwellings, farm buildings, and associated outbuildings. Description of Proposal This is a full planning application for the erection of replacement dwelling previously approved under reference I/2006/1156/RM and retention of foundations for same, at 105M East of No. Limehill Road, Pomeroy.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the foundations were in the correct place for over five years, enforcement was no longer available, and personal circumstances delayed development.

“The commissioner took the view that she was not being asked to consider the lawfulness of the completion of the dwelling that had been previously approved, but rather the lawfulness of the works described on the CLEUD. The commissioner concluded that as the works as described on the CLEUD were substantially complete for over five years then enforcement action could not be taken and she awarded the certificate of lawfulness.”

“All material considerations have been assessed, and a recommendation has been made based on these: • Evidence has been provided that the concrete foundations have been put in the correct place more than five years ago. These concrete foundations are no longer subject to planning enforcement action. • The PAC appeal decision 2024/L0008 which awarded a certificate of lawfulness for foundations that had been in situ for more than five years.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The proposal failed the primary replacement-dwelling test because no dwelling remained, but its design and effect on rural character were considered acceptable.

“…development in the countryside. Policy CTY 1 provides clarification on which types of development area acceptable in the countryside. In this instance the application is the erection of a replacement dwelling therefore this application will be assessed under CTY 3 of PPS21. Policies CTY 13 and 14 will also be considered in terms of integration and rural character.”

“The statement highlights that the policy gives accident and fire as examples only of how a dwelling might be “destroyed” and that a dwelling could also be destroyed by demolition. This was considered, and officers were of the opinion that the policy allows for recently destroyed dwellings that have been destroyed accidentally (e.g fire), however in this case the dwelling was demolished with intent.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer highlighted an addendum and addressed the planning agent’s email about the interpretation of policy CTY 3.

Members considered the application

Members considered the circulated planning report, which recommended approval.

“Members considered previously circulated report on planning application LA09/2026/0106/F which had a recommendation for approval.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to approve was proposed and seconded, and the committee resolved to approve the application.

“Resolved That planning application LA09/2026/0106/F be approved subject to conditions as per the officer’s report.”

Minutes