Infill dwelling and garage at Land 30m West of 68 Ballywoodock Road, Castlerock

“Outline planning permission is sought for an infill dwelling and garage in accordance with Policy CTY 8 (Ribbon Development). • The application site is located outside of any settlement development limits as identified in the Northern Area Plan (NAP) 2016. The site is not subject to any specific environmental designations.”

“Outline Planning Permission is sought for a proposed infill dwelling and garage. The application site is located within an agricultural field. An indicative block plan has been submitted which shows proposed siting, however details relating to design and finish are not available at this outline stage.”

“The site comprises an irregular shaped plot which form the south- eastern corner of a wider agricultural field. The eastern boundary of the site is defined by a low level concrete wall some 1 metre in height whilst the southern boundary is delineated by post and wire fencing and a sporadic hedging The remaining boundaries are undefined.”

“The surrounding area is rural in nature and characterised by agricultural lands and single rural dwellings and farm holdings.”

“Having considered the existing pattern of development along the row in terms of plot size, frontage length and character of the area it is concluded that the gap is not a ‘small’ gap site sufficient to only accommodate up to a maximum of two dwellings and is therefore not suitable for infilling under prevailing policy.”

“The infilling of this gap which exists between the dwelling to the west of the site and the buildings to the east of the site would remove an important visual break which provides visual relief and maintains the rural character of the area. The infilling of this gap would result in the proposal adding to development along this stretch of the road resulting in the creation of ribbon development. The proposal is fails criterion (d) of CTY14.”

“PUBLICITY & CONSULTATIONS 5.1 External Neighbours: Two objections have been received in relation to the application.”

“The representations contend that the proposal is not compliant with Policies CTY 8 and CTY14 as it does not respect the infilling of a small gap site or respect the existing development pattern in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size. The proposal will also result in ribbon development and erode rural character through sub-urban style build up. This has been further assessed below.”

“Proposed by Alderman Callan Seconded by Alderman S McKillop - That Planning Committee concur with Item 5.2 and grant Planning Permission for the same reasons. Given the discussion on the previous application and filtered into previous assessment, all issues have been fully discussed and considered.”

“Proposed by Alderman Callan Seconded by Alderman S McKillop - That the Committee has taken into consideration and disagrees with the reasons for recommendation set out in Section 9 and the policies and guidance in sections 7 and 8 and resolves to Approve planning permission for the following reasons: - Planning Committee have taken into account evidence by Agent and previous reasons at Item 5.2 that still stand on this application, Item 5.3.”

“RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and disagrees with the reasons for recommendation set out in Section 9 and the policies and guidance in sections 7 and 8 and resolves to Approve planning permission for the following reasons: - Planning Committee have taken into account evidence by Agent and previous reasons at Item 5.2 that still stand on this application, Item 5.3.”

“RESOLVED – That Conditions and Informatives are delegated to Officers.”