Agricultural shed at 40m North West of 17 Hawthorn Road, Omagh

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to retain a general purpose agricultural shed.

“Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located circa 40 metres North West of 17 Hawthorn Road, outside the settlement limits of Omagh. The site as outlined in red contains a large agricultural- style shed which is set back circa 125m from the public road and is the subject of this application. This shed is located in the rectangular area at the north of the red line, with the remainder of the red line showing the existing access from the public road.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a dwelling, a replacement dwelling, and a replacement dwelling with domestic garage.

“Proposal: Erection of dwelling Application Number: K/2001/1182/O Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: February 2002 Proposal: Proposed Replacement Dwelling Application Number: K/2004/1518/RM Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: February 2005 Proposal: Proposed Replacement Dwelling and Domestic Garage…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the shed too close to a neighbouring dwelling, likely to cause disturbance, inadequately justified, and contrary to several policies.

“In addition to concerns raised by EHS, given the limited separation distances, it is considered that the general day-to-day farming activities i.e. general comings and goings, movement of livestock, various deliveries of meal, fertiliser, fuel etc. would result in an unacceptable level of general disturbance to No.19 as the existing access lies circa 25m from the boundary of No.19.”

“The proposed shed is a general purpose shed and it has been located further away from the closest neighbour. The closest residential dwelling is 63m away from the rear of the shed. As the shed is general purpose and with only lambing pens within it, no odour or noise will be generated by the proposal. The openings on the building are on the opposite side of the nearest receptor.”

Officer report

The farming justification

Officers found insufficient evidence that the farm had operated for six years or needed a shed of this scale.

“(a) The farm or forestry business is currently active and has been established for at least 6 years; DAERA were consulted on the application who confirmed the farm business ID identified on Form P1C has not been in existence for more than 6 years (19/04/2024) and the farm business has not claimed payments through the Basic Payment Scheme or Agri Environment scheme in each of the last 6 years (2024 only).”

“While it is acknowledged the existing sheds on site would be unsuitable for the storage of machinery or keeping of livestock, from the evidence provided it is considered that the level of activity and number of animals registered to the applicant do not necessitate a shed of this scale. No evidence of machinery to be stored in the shed has been provided.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health did not support the application, NIEA identified a potential surface water impact, and DfI Roads had no objection.

“Consultee Date sent Date published Response DAERA 19/02/2025 18/03/2025 Advice DfI Roads 19/02/2025 18/03/2025 No objection Environmental Health 19/02/2025 18/03/2025 Not Content and EHS do not support the application NI Water 19/02/2025 18/03/2025 Approved with Standard Conditions NIEA 19/02/2025 18/03/2025 Further information required Environmental Health 01/08/2025 20/08/2025 Not Content and EHS do not support the application NIEA 01/08/2025 02/09/2025 Potential to…”

Officer report

Representations received

No objections or other representations had been received.

“REPRESENTATIONS To date, no objections or representations have been received.”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent argued that the farm was maintained for over six years, the shed replaced unsuitable buildings, and neighbour impacts would be limited.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the receipts sufficient, the existing sheds unsuitable, and the Environmental Health concerns marginal.

“The Principal Planning Officer stated that Environmental Health did not recommend refusal as they provided advice and it was Planning Officers who made recommendations based on that advice, with the Committee making the final decision. He added that although Environmental Health had stated they did not support the application, and while this was not a refusal it remained a significant concern that needs to be considered.”

“Another Member stated that, as a business owner, she was satisfied with how the receipts had been handled and stored. A Member stated that he was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to meet the six-year rule in this specific case, particularly the receipts, and he accepted the evidence provided in this regard.”

Minutes