One-bedroom apartment at 4A Omagh Road, Drumquin

“Description of Proposal Proposed change of use and front extension and alterations of existing public toilets to form an apartment…”

“As the application does not meet DE01, DE02, TR01, HOU05 and HOU07 within the Plan Strategy, then the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development and there is harm to interests of acknowledged importance, the proposal is contrary to SP01.”

“CONCLUSION In conclusion, the proposal fails to comply with policies DE01, DE02, TR01, HOU05, SP01, and HOU07, therefore the proposal is recommended for refusal.”

“DFI Roads were consulted and responded on the 26/11/2024 advising that the hard stand in front of the proposed dwelling is considered unsuitable as a parking space due to limited visibility splays and restricting pedestrian movement. DFI Roads were re-consulted with additional supporting information and responded on the 28/03/2025 that they are proceeding with their previous advice given in the previous consultation.”

“NI Water were consulted and responded on the 15/11/2024 and recommended refusal due to no available capacity in the downstream wastewater infrastructure, and no viable developer led solution available to achieve a foul connection. Additional supporting information was provided by the agent and NI Water were re-consulted and responded on the 02/04/2025 content subject to conditions.”

“The following issues were raised. • An extension to the front of property 4a Omagh Road will block the view from the objector’s bedroom window which is locate on the gable end of property 4 Omagh Road. Concerns regarding the front extension giving direct line of sight into their bedroom.”

“Concerns about the potential noise from construction and ongoing residential use. • The apartment overlooking property 6. • The space in front of property 4a is a public footpath/ right of way. • Concerns regarding the proposed parking which could cause pedestrians to have to walk into the road causing a danger to both the traffic and pedestrian, hazardous road conditions, and moving cars outside of proposed dwelling can cause accidents.”

“Another Member stated that he believed that there was scope for further discussions with the applicant/agent and DfI Roads in relation to parking and road safety, as he was of the opinion that the other refusal reasons could be overcome if the road safety issues could be addressed.”

“A Member confirmed that in light of the discussion and comments, he did not agree with refusal reasons 2, 3, 4 and 6, and his proposal was to hold the application in relation to refusal reasons 1 and 5 only, as he believed that refusal reasons 2, 3, 4 and 6 had been overcome to his satisfaction.”

“On the proposal of Councillor McClaughry, seconded by Councillor A Feely, and agreed by the majority, that the issuing of the decision on the above application be held for a period of two weeks as allowed in the Planning Committee Protocol to allow discussion of potential alternative options or solutions with the applicant/agent in relation to refusal reasons 1 and 5 only, as refusal reasons 2, 3, 4 and 6 had been overcome to Members’ satisfaction. (”