Infill dwelling and garage at Approx 70 M east of 27 Inishative Road, Inishtative, Sixmilecross

What was proposed

The application proposed an infill site for one dwelling and a garage in the countryside.

“Characteristics of the Site and Area The proposal is located approx. M east of 27 Inishative Road, Inishtative, Sixmilecross, BT79 9HS. The proposed site is located within the countryside according to the Local Development Plan: Plan Viewer 2030.”

“Description of Proposal Proposed infill site for dwelling and garage…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal failed countryside, rural character, integration and sustainable development policies.

“Policy SP01 – Furthering Sustainable Development This strategic policy permits development proposals which further sustainable development and promote measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and which have regard to the Local Development Plan and other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. In such cases, planning permission should be refused.”

“CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to not meet policies DE03, DE04, DE05, HOU013 and SP01 within the Plan Strategy. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for refusal. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes…”

Officer report

Why the site was disputed

Officers considered the site an important visual break rather than a small gap within a substantial, continuously built-up frontage.

“1.Is there a substantial and continuously built-up frontage? The first test to consider is whether there is a substantial and continuously built-up frontage (SCBUF). The Plan Strategy defines a SCBUF as “a line of at least 3 buildings, each with their own defined curtilage”.”

“Paragraph 4.5.1 of Buildings on Tradition provides useful guidance on what a ‘visual break’ is. It states that ‘As a general rule of thumb, gap sites within a continuous built up frontage exceeding the local average plot width may be considered to constitute an important visual break’. This is supported by the comments in the Duff judgement (Para 60) “it is a matter of common sense that the larger the site, the more likely it is to offer an important visual break”.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Roads were content subject to a condition, while water and environmental consultees raised no objection preventing the proposal from proceeding.

“Policy TR01 – Land Use and Transport The proposal requires the construction of a new access to a public road. Therefore, DFI Roads were notified and responded initially requesting additional information. DFI Roads were then re-consulted with this additional information that they are content subject to a condition regarding information to be provided at the Reserved Matters stage. The proposal satisfies policy TR01.”

“Policy PU04 –Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage This development, as indicated on the application, relies on non-mains sewerage. It is proposed that a Septic Tank will be implemented as part of the scheme to dispose foul sewage. It is accepted that a Septic Tank is a suitable and realistic way to dispose of effluent. NIEA Water Management Unit (WMU) has been consulted on this application in relation to the non-mains sewerage.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter addressed the committee and said the site had minimal visual impact, suitable vegetation and would not create ribbon development.

What members debated

Members debated whether the site formed part of an existing frontage, whether it could accommodate more dwellings and how policy and court guidance applied.

“The Principal Planning Officer stated that while measurements were not included in the presentation, the report referenced plot sizes of nearby buildings and these figures had been considered in relation to the court judgment and current policy context. He clarified that although the Plan Strategy infill policy was not referenced, it aligned closely with the SPPS and the key policy test was whether the proposed development respected the character of the area.”

“33’s garden formed part of the gap; • In the Court judgement referenced, the issue concerned whether a ménage, an equestrian exercise area situated in front of one of the properties formed part of the dwelling’s frontage; and • Planning Officers had previously taken the view that the ménage was included within the frontage, thereby reducing the perceived gap between dwellings, however, the Court determined that the frontage ended where the ménage began and that the ménage…”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee rejected approval by four votes to eight, then supported refusal by eight votes to four.

“Given the divergence in opinion, the Chair stated that he would put the proposal that the Committee go against the Officer recommendation and approve the planning application to a vote and voting took place as follows: FOR: 4 votes AGAINST: 8 votes Therefore, the proposal was defeated.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused by majority vote for the four reasons listed in the committee papers.

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor McClaughry, seconded by Councillor Rainey, and by the majority of votes cast, that the above application be refused planning permission, for the four reasons listed within Paragraph 8.0 of Appendix 4. (”

Minutes