Replacement dwelling and studio at 40 Strand Road, Portstewart

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey replacement dwelling with attic rooms, an integral garage, detached artists’ studio and associated works.

“App No: LA01/2023/0615/F Ward: Portstewart App Type: Full Planning Address: Strand Road, Portstewart, BT55 7LU. Proposal: Erection of proposed 2 storey replacement dwelling, including attic rooms, integral garage and detached artists studio as ancillary to dwelling, including extension to curtilage and all associated works/landscaping.”

“Executive Summary • Planning permission is sought for Erection of proposed 2 storey replacement dwelling, including attic rooms, integral garage and detached artist’s studio as ancillary to dwelling, including extension to curtilage and all associated works/landscaping.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a single-storey dwelling beside a coastal path, with residential properties to the north and south and rising ground behind.

“The western boundary of the site is defined by a rendered wall, approximately 1.5m. Beyond the wall is the Dominican Walk, a coastal path popular with locals and tourists. Beyond the path is the shoreline. A 1m close board fence defines the northern boundary, beyond which is a 1.5 storey semidetached block at 38 and 36 Strand Road. The eastern boundary is defined with a 1m fence abutting the footpath at Strand Road.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An expired outline permission allowed three dwellings subject to a seven-metre ridge-height restriction for visual amenity.

“There is no relevant recent planning history. However, an outline permission (now expired) was granted on the site, under planning application C/1999/0908/O, for 3No. dwellings which restricted ridge height to 7m above FFL in the interest of visual amenity.”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

The proposed footprint and height exceeded the existing dwelling substantially, bringing the building closer to the path and neighbouring property.

“The existing dwelling has a ridge hight of approximately 6m from FFL. The proposed dwelling has a ridge height of approximately 8.9m from FFL, an increase of over 48%. As the proposed FFL will also be greater than existing, with an increase of 0.2m, the proposed dwelling will be 9.1m from the FFL of the existing dwelling, an increase of over 51% in real terms.”

“PTL 06 is designed to protect the environmental quality, integrity and character of the lands within the designation. The inappropriate scale of the development will be exacerbated by the increased FFL and the fact that the proposed dwelling will be located approximately 5.7m closer to the path than the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling will appear dominant to users…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health, Northern Ireland Water, DFI Roads and the Historic Environment Division raised no objections.

“There were 4 objectors to the proposal. Issues raised include:”

“Internal: Environmental Health: No objection to the proposal. Northern Ireland Water: No objections to the proposal. DFI Roads: No objection to the proposal. Historical Environment Division – Historic Buildings and Historic Monuments - No objection.”

Officer report

What objectors said

Four objectors raised concerns about height, privacy, views, traffic, the shared lane, property values and the proposal’s scale and character.

“- The proposed height of the proposal will adversely affect views and privacy. - The additional traffic that may be expected from a development of this scale would adversely affect the use of the shared private laneway.”

“- There was an agreement with owners of 36, 38 & 40 to keep height of properties similar, to maintain property values. - Height of new dwelling would severely devalue 34, 36 & 38. - Neighbouring dwelling has been in family ownership since 1939. - The proposal is not a reasonable replacement as it excessively exceeds the footprint and height of the existing dwelling.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Head of Planning presented a verbal recommendation concerning revised plans and further objection letters received after the site visit.

The committee vote

Fourteen members voted for deferral, with none against and none abstaining.

“Proposed by Alderman Scott Seconded by Councillor Watton - That the Committee note the contents of this verbal Addendum and agree with the recommendation to defer the application to allow for neighbour notification and consideration of the revised proposal and letters of objection.”

“The Chair put the motion to the Committee vote. Members voted For; Members voted Against; Member Abstained. The Chair declared the motion carried and application deferred.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The application was deferred to allow neighbour notification and consideration of the revised proposal and objection letters.

“Recommendation That the Committee note the contents of this verbal Addendum and agree with the recommendation to defer the application to allow for neighbour notification and consideration of the revised proposal and letters of objection.”

Minutes