Countryside dwelling at Land immediately to the rear of 54a High Bangor Road, Donaghadee

The cluster and focal point dispute

Officers did not accept that a neighbouring dwelling and a nearby garden centre could count towards the cluster or focal point needed for a countryside dwelling policy exception.

“This suggested that an existing cluster of development was to be formed by buildings and this was reinforced in criterion three whereby a cluster must be associated with a focal point such as a social/community building/facility if not located at a crossroads. The second criterion required that a cluster appeared as a visual entity in the local landscape.”

“Donaghadee Garden Centre was located some 360m from the boundary of no. Stockbridge Road. In another more recent appeal decision 2022/A0014 issued in January 2023, the Commissioner considered a church as a valid community facility but given that there was a significant gap of around 100m between it and the nearest building in the ‘cluster’ it was considered not to read as part of the same visual entity as the main cluster of development.”

Minutes

A speaker urged approval

A speaker supporting the application argued the committee report had not shown the proposal would harm the countryside and urged members to overturn the officers' recommendation.

What members debated

Members disagreed over whether a neighbouring dwelling formed part of a development cluster and whether a nearby garden centre could count as its focal point.

“Councillor Smart acknowledged why the proposal had been made given the report which was before them but was keen to get a wider perspective from the officer on the implications of changing the recommendation. He indicated that he would be keen to know if this would create a precedent for building in the countryside and how repeatable such a development could be.”

“Councillor Hennessy referred to the focal point commenting that the distance between the Garden Centre and the cluster was getting smaller as the meeting was continuing. He was in agreement that number 56 did not form part of the cluster and therefore he agreed with the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. At this stage Alderman Smith acknowledged that the two issues were the focal point and whether number 56 was included as part of the cluster.”

Minutes

What was decided

Members then voted 10 to 4, with 1 abstention and 1 absent, to adopt the officers' recommendation and refuse planning permission.

“He added that what Members were being asked to take into consideration was that this application would not cause any additional harm to the countryside and because the cluster was already there bound on two sides and to add a further building to that would not cause any additional harm.”

“The voting was as follows: FOR (10) AGAINST (4) ABSTAINED (1) ABSENT (1) Aldermen Aldermen Councillor Councillor McDowell Graham McCollum Kerr McAlpine McIlveen Smith Councillors Councillors Cathcart Hennessy Wray Harbinson Morgan Smart McKee Kendall McClean RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman McDowell, seconded by Alderman Smith, that the recommendation be adopted and that planning permission be refused. 4.2”

Minutes