Explosives store retention at Lands approximately 600 metres southwest of No.45 Camcosy Road, Curraghinalt, Gortin, Co.

What was proposed

The application sought more time, until the end of October 2025, to restore a temporary explosives store site and associated works.

“Proposal: Variation of Condition 6 of K/2014/0387/F (Revised explosives store location and layout; a temporary explosives store building, extension to the existing access track, security fencing and gates, 3 culverts/headwalls; CCTV; screening bund, protective housing, hard standing areas and site restoration) to complete restoration of the site in accordance with conditions 5 & 7 of K/2014/0387/F by the end of October 2025.”

“Proposed development This application seeks permission to vary Condition 6 of K/2014/0387/F (Revised explosives store location and layout; a temporary explosives store building, extension to the existing access track, security fencing and gates, 3 culverts/headwalls; CCTV; screening bund, protective housing, hard standing areas and site restoration) to complete restoration of the site in accordance with conditions 5 & 7 of K/2014/0387/F by the end of October 2025.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a rectangular plot beside Camcosy Road, reached by a stoned lane, with a building inside security fencing.

“Site Details The site is located at Camcosy Road and is a rectangular shaped plot accessed by a stoned laneway. There is an existing building on site surrounded by a security fence.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and delays

Earlier permissions covered exploration and the explosives store, while restoration deadlines were extended, refused, and remain subject to an open enforcement file.

“K/2014/0387/F – A revised explosives store location and layout; a temporary explosives store building; a temporary 160m long extension (3.5m wide) to the existing access track; temporary security fencing (up to 3.75 metres high) and security gates, 3 culverts/headwalls; CCTV; a temporary screening bund (3.0 metres high); a temporary protective housing (3.75 metres high) around the existing ventilation raise; hard standing areas; and site restoration within an application…”

“The Council presently has an open enforcement file in respect of breach of the decommissioning and restoration condition imposed on permission K/2014/0387/F. The Council is satisfied that there has been a breach of condition 6 of K/2014/0387/F.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered continued retention unsustainable because it conflicted with countryside, minerals, landscape, AONB and tourism policies.

“However, for the reasons listed within the Report, the retention of the development on site for the further period specified is not considered to be sustainable development as it does not fall within any of the range of types of development in the countryside that are supported by the Plan Strategy and there are no other material considerations which justify a decision being taken contrary to the Plan Strategy.”

“The proposal does not have the capacity to absorb the building on an ongoing basis without adverse impact on visual amenity and its ongoing retention results in an obtrusive feature in the landscape. The retention of the development will also result in a suburban style build-up of development when considered with existing buildings which does not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in the area. It also creates a ribbon of development.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

DfI Roads, Water Management and Environmental Health raised no objection, while Shared Environmental Services gave no response.

“The Council has consulted Shared Environmental Services (SES) seeking advice on the potential impact of the development upon nearby designated sites. SES has not responded with comments. The Council has endeavoured to obtain a response from SES but a response has not been forthcoming.”

“DAERA NIEA Water Management Unit advise that it ‘notes this application relates to a proposed time extension to comply with Condition 6 of K/2014/0387/F and has no objection’.”

Officer report

People who spoke

Supporters described the structures as small, screened and visually assimilated, while objectors challenged their landscape fit, safety and original approval.

Committee discussion

Officers said the application could only address the relevant condition and maintained that visual harm justified refusal.

“The Principal Planning Officer reminded Members that this was a Section 54 application and, as such, consideration was strictly limited to the question of the relevant conditions attached to the existing planning permission and this was not an opportunity to revisit the principle of the development itself and focus must be solely on the specific condition that the applicant had requested to be varied.”

“In response to comments regarding the report, the Lead Planner stated that Officers did not accept that any contradictions exist when the report is read fairly as a whole and additionally, any suggestion that the Council had acted inappropriately at any stage was firmly rejected.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee vote was tied at six votes each, so the Chair used a casting vote in favour of refusal.

“In response to comments from a Member, the Lead Legal Services Officer clarified that as Councillor Thompson was not present for the entirety of the presentation in accordance with the Planning Committee Protocol and following the Hartland’s judgment, any Member who is not present for the full duration of a presentation of an application should not participate in the vote.”

“With six votes cast in favour and six votes cast against, the Chair used his casting vote to vote in favour of the proposal which was therefore carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused planning permission for the seven reasons set out in the officer recommendation.

“Given the divergence in opinion, the Chair stated that he was putting the proposal by Councillor Devine Gallagher, seconded by Councillor O’Reilly that the Committee should adopt the recommendation to refuse planning permission to a vote and voting took place as follows:”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor Devine Gallagher, seconded by Councillor O’Reilly, and by the majority of votes cast, that the above application be refused planning permission for the seven reasons listed at Paragraph 8.0 of Appendix 2. (”

Minutes