Replacement dwelling at 8 Cedar Avenue, Ballycastle

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for a replacement dwelling as built, involving a change of house type from an earlier approval.

“Proposal: Retrospective application for proposed replacement dwelling as built for residential purposes - (change of house type from LA01/2016/0956/F Con Area: n/a Valid Date: 13.06.2024 Listed Building Grade: n/a Agent: MKA Planning Ltd, 32 Clooney Terrace, Waterside, Derry Objections: Petitions of Objection: Support: Petitions of Support: 0”

“Executive Summary • This is a full application seeking retrospective permission for a replacement dwelling as built for residential purposes - (change of house type from LA01/2016/0956/F)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an irregular plot within the settlement limit, in an established residential area and the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB.

“The application site is an irregular shaped plot measuring approximately 0.04ha. The site is relatively flat but the dwelling sits at a higher level to the adjacent properties to the north- east and south-east. The land to the north rises towards Rathlin Road.”

“The property is located within the Ballycastle Settlement Development Limit, and within the Antrim Coast and Glens AONB as indicated by map no. 5/01a of the Northern Area Plan.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development would cause unacceptable overlooking and harm to neighbouring private amenity.

“The development is considered unacceptable in this location having regard to the Northern Area Plan 2016, and other material considerations, including the SPPS. There have been twenty seven letters of objection to the application. The principle of a replacement dwelling on the site is considered acceptable. However, the previous planning permission has expired and as such there is no fallback position.”

“The proposal is contrary to paragraph 4.12 of the SPPS and criteria (h) of Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7, Quality Residential Environments, the Design Guide Creating Places and Development Control Advice Note 8, Housing in Existing Urban Areas in that the development as proposed fails to take account of the private amenity of surrounding properties and does not provide a quality residential environment.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Roads, water, environmental health and heritage consultees raised no objection or were content, while 27 objections came from 12 addresses.

“DFI Roads: No objections NI Water: Approval Environmental Health: No objections following submission of additional information HED: Content…”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Objectors raised concerns about design, scale, overlooking, loss of light, balconies, noise, overdevelopment and other impacts.

“Overshadowing/Blocks light to rooms in neighbouring properties • Balconies have an impact on privacy • Query if development is extension or entire construction varies from approved? • Development not located as approved • Concerns regarding proposed use • Noise from heat pump.”

“Concerns regarding design and impact on character of the area are addressed in paragraphs 8.13 – 8.44. • Concerns regarding impact on impact on amenity, overlooking and overshadowing are addressed in paragraphs 8.13 – 8.44. • Concerns regarding asbestos and waste management were informatives under the previous permission and not specific conditions requiring discharge by the Planning Department. • Concerns regarding the proposed use of the property have been raised.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A senior planning officer presented the application, and a registered objector raised concerns about notification and short notice.

Members’ debate

Members discussed notification concerns and proposed a site visit to understand the application’s context.

“Councillor Watton proposed that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to see the context of the application. Councillor McMullan stated that a site meeting would be for the best.”

“Proposed by Councillor Watton Seconded by Councillor McMullan - That the Committee defer consideration of application LA01/2024/0688/F to allow for a site visit to see the context of the application.”

Minutes

The vote

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

“The Vice Chair put the motion to the vote 12 Members voted For; Members voted Against; Members Abstained The Vice Chair declared the application deferred.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee deferred consideration of the application to allow a site visit to see the context.

“RESOLVED - That Planning Committee defer consideration of application LA01/2024/0688/F to allow for a site visit to see the context of the application.”

Minutes