Boundary wall and gate at Land immediately adjacent and to the west of Gosford Castle, Markethill

What was proposed

The application sought a 32-metre natural stone boundary wall, with rounded granite coping and a black steel pedestrian gate.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a boundary wall with pedestrian gate along one boundary of an existing vacant area of land which was previously used as a car park. All other boundaries of the vacant land are enclosed by existing walls (except where breaks exist for entrance purposes).”

“The erection of a boundary wall measuring approximately 32 metres in length and 1.68 metres in height. The wall is to be finished in locally sourced natural stone to match the existing adjoining walls (which enclose the vacant site) and finished off with rounded granite coping; and 2. Located 7.5 metres from the northern edge of the site, a metal pedestrian gate is proposed within the wall which measures approximately 1.2 metres in width and 2 metres in height.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was vacant land formerly used as a car park, beside Gosford Castle and an access road serving apartments.

“The application site encompasses an area of land between an area of vacant land (a former car park) on the Gosford estate and an access road serving apartments within the Gosford Castle complex. The site measures out to approximately 0.04 hectares.”

“The site is located within the open countryside as defined in the Armagh Area Plan 2004. The area plan also identifies that the site is also located with the Historic Park, Garden and Demesne (HPGD) of Gosford Castle. This HPGD is a Grade A example with reference A- 018. The area plan also identifies that the site is located within the Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) of Gosford Forest Park.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered Gosford Castle dwellings, associated works and an 11-home residential development, while listed building consent for this proposal was pending.

“Change of use of castle building to 23 No. dwelling houses and associated alterations and site works to include bin store, garaging, tennis court and pavillion for residents use only.”

“Erection of residential development comprising 11no 1.5 storey dwellings (3no. detached, 2no. semi detached and 6no. townhouses), private amenity space, parking, landscape scheme including walled garden maintenance plan and ancillary site works…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal complied with the area plan, regional policies and other relevant planning policies, subject to conditions.

“Conclusion Having regard to the above, and after undertaking a policy assessment and planning balancing exercise, Officers are of the opinion that the proposed development complies with the Area Plan, the SPPS and all other relevant planning policies.”

“On this basis and subject to the conditions attached it is recommended that planning permission be granted.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Historic Environment Division raised no objection, subject to conditions for historic buildings, and no objection for historic monuments.

“HED: Historic Buildings – (03.10.2025) – No objection, subject to conditions.”

“HED: Historic Monuments – (03.10.2025) – No objection.”

Officer report

Objections received

Four objections and a 21-signature petition raised concerns about access, security, privacy, the gate, wall height, consultation and works already started.

“Members are advised that 4 no. letters of objection from 4 no. postal addresses and a petition (in the form of identically worded letters) containing 21 no. signatures have been received regarding this planning application.”

“There is some confusion over the height of the wall as it is labelled as 1680 without specifying under what unit of measurement this is; • There is no detail of security of maintenance features on the gate; • The provision of the gate is not desired by current residents to access residents’ common garden area; • The gate would compromise the security and privacy of existing residents; • There would be no right of access for future residents of the approved housing…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent attended but said she would not make a representation and was available to answer members’ questions.

Members’ discussion

The Chair said the application would tidy the site, while other members supported its natural stone design and considered it an improvement.

“COMMENTED: by the Chair, Councillor Kevin Savage , that this seemed like a suitable application which would tidy up the site.”

“CONCURRED: by Alderman Kennedy with the remarks made and said the proposal was in keeping with the site by proposing to use natural stone and would be and improvement on what was there.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members approved the application subject to conditions, on a proposal seconded by a councillor, with no counter-proposal.

“MOVED: the meeting, by the Chair, to Members’ decision.”

“AGREED: on the proposal of the Vice-Chair, Councillor O’Dowd, seconded by Councillor Flaherty, that Application No: LA08/2025/0655/F by MFF Contracts be approved, subject to conditions.”

Minutes