Replacement dwelling and garage at 42 Dhu Varren, Portrush

What was proposed

The application sought to replace an existing semi-detached house with a detached dwelling, rear return and detached garage with ancillary rooms.

“260128 Executive Summary • Full Planning Permission is sought to replace the existing two storey semi-detached dwelling with a detached 2.5 storey dwelling with a 3 storey rear return, and detached garden room/ artist’s studio/ garage. • The application site is located within the Settlement Development Limit of Portrush. The site is not subject to any other specific zonings or designations as set out in the Northern Area Plan 2016.”

“260128 dwellings comprising 1No. detached and 2No. semi-detached. Approved 11/02/09. C/2012/0502/F. 10 & 10a Blackrock Road. Demolition of existing two and a half to three storey dwellings to provide three storey replacement dwelling with associated car parking and landscaping. Approved 11/02/13. LA01/2017/1110/F. Dhu Varen.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in an established residential area within Portrush’s settlement limit, with access from Dhu Varren and Blackrock Road.

“260128 Drawings and additional information are available to view on the Planning Portal- https://planningregister.planningsystemni.gov.uk/simple-search 1 RECOMMENDATION 1.0 That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 9 and the policies and guidance in sections 7 and 8 and resolves to APPROVE planning permission as set out in section 10.”

“The site is not subject to any specific zonings or designations as set out in the northern Area Plan 2016. It is proposed to replace the existing 2 storey semi-detached dwelling on site with a 2.5 storey detached dwelling with a 3 storey rear return, and detached garage/ garden room/ artist’s studio. RELEVANT HISTORY Surrounding Area C/2008/0456/F. Lands at No.9 Blackrock Road, Portrush. Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of 3No.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered acceptable in its location, design, scale, residential impact, access and parking.

“260128 Scale/Design, Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity 8.5 Paragraphs 4.23 to 4.30 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) Ed 2 are relevant to this application which relate to good design. Design is a material consideration in the assessment of all applications and good design should be encouraged.”

“260128 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 In conclusion, taking all relevant planning policy and material considerations into account, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its siting, scale and design. The proposed development can successfully integrate into the site functionally and visually and does not negatively impact the local area or environment. The points raised in the letters of objection have been fully considered in the assessment.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

DfI Roads, Environmental Health and NI Water raised no objections, while residents raised concerns about the garage, amenity, access, parking and construction.

“260128 • Lack of clarity on how their property (Attached neighbour, 40 Dhu Varen) will be protected during the separation process. • They were informed by the applicant that demolition would happen August- September 2025 and permission has not been granted. They say this raises concerns regarding the correct procedural steps being followed.”

“260128 • Contemporary design not in keeping. • Proposed dwelling sits forward and will be prominent. • Roof terrace potentially has a 360 degree view into adjacent properties. • Proposed windows will overlook. • Rear balcony has no privacy screening. • Overdevelopment. • 40 Dhu Varen not notified. Internal • DFI Roads – No objection. • CCG Environmental Health – No objection. • NI Water – No objection.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector asked for a single-storey garage and lower roof, while the agent supported the amended design and described the garage as ancillary.

Members’ questions

Members questioned the need for the two-storey garage, its roof height and how its ancillary use would be controlled.

“Councillor Watton queried the need for the two-storey garage. S Caithness advised that the owner wants to have space for friends and family visiting, and that the garage will sit lower than the house so the impact will be minimal.”

“In response to a query regarding the roof height, S Caithness advised that there was a quick discussion following the January Planning Committee meeting regarding the roof but no official proposal was made. S Caithness stated that the ridge height can be looked at, but the Case Officers are content with the original proposal, which aligns with the building on the other side. S Caithness stated that there is no formal arrangement to amend the ridge height.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The approval motion received eleven votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention.

“* Councillor McQuillan joined the meeting remotely at 12.04pm during consideration of this Item and abstained from the vote.”

“260325 The Vice Chair put the motion to the Committee to vote. Members voted For; Members voted Against, 1 Member Abstained. The Vice Chair declared the motion carried and application approved.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and the report’s conditions.

“Proposed by Councillor C Archibald Seconded by Councillor McMullan - That the Committee agree with the recommendation to approve the application in accordance with Paragraph 1.0 of the Planning Committee report.”

“RESOLVED - That the Committee agree with the recommendation to approve the application in accordance with Paragraph 1.0 of the Planning Committee report.”

Minutes