35 static caravan plots at Craigahulliar Holiday Park 23 Ballymacrea Road Portrush (including Land to South of existing holiday park)
Summary of planning committee decision
Deferred by Causeway And Glens Planning Committee on 26 Aug 2026.
The site
The site lies outside a settlement limit, within open countryside, and adjoins or partly lies within the Craigahulliar ASSI.
“The application site is located at Craigahulliar Holiday Park and includes lands associated with the holiday park and lands directly to the south. The lands associated with the existing holiday park include the vehicular access to Ballymacrea Road and the internal site roads leading to the southern end of the site. At the southern end of the site is a warehouse style building surrounded by hardstanding.”
“The site is located outside any settlement development limit as designated under NAP 2016. The site has no land use zonings or designations within Northern Area Plan 2016. The site has an archaeological site and monument (unscheduled) indicated within the site. Ballymacrea Road from which the site is accessed is indicated to form a part of an existing cycle route.”
Officer report
Earlier planning history
The existing holiday park was approved in 2017, with later approvals including layout amendments and additional static caravan pitches.
“LA01/2024/0485/F Craigahulliar Holiday Park, 23 Ballymacrea Road, Portrush Retention of design amendments to previously approved caravan park (approved under planning permission C/2013/0097/F), including 14no. caravan pitches suitable for static caravans in lieu of 3no. approved static caravan pitches, 3no. approved touring caravan pitches and 8no.”
“LA01/2022/0080/F Craigahulliar Holiday Park, 23 Ballymacrea Road, Craigahulliar Retention of design amendments to previously approved caravan park (approved under planning permission C/2013/0097/F), including 59no. caravan pitches suitable for static caravans in lieu of 48no. approved touring caravan pitches and 14no. approved static caravan pitches (a reduction from 62no. approved to 59no.”
Officer report
Why members wanted a visit
Alderman Brown Stewart requested a site visit so committee members could assess the proposal’s visual impact.
“Alderman Brown Stewart requested that this Item be deferred for a site visit, to allow Planning Committee Members to assess the visual impact of the proposal.”
“Proposed by Alderman Brown Stewart Seconded Alderman Boyle - That the Committee defer consideration of Item LA01/2023/1085/F for a site visit, to allow Planning Committee Members to assess the visual impact of the proposal.”
Minutes
The vote
Twelve members voted for deferral, with none against and none abstaining.
“The Chair put the motion to the Committee to vote. Members voted For; Members voted Against, 0 Members Abstained. The Chair declared the motion carried and application deferred for a site visit.”
Minutes
The decision
The committee deferred consideration of the application for a site visit.
“RESOLVED - That the Committee defer consideration of Item…”
Minutes
Sources
- Causeway And Glens Planning Committee minutes, 26 August 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Causeway And Glens's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Causeway And Glens
- Date
- Wednesday 26 August 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Deferred
- Vote
- 12 for, 0 against
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Causeway And Glens committee decisions →
Source: Plota analysis of the minutes.
This committee's year
65 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.