Dwelling and garage at Between 73 and 77 Toura Road, Belleek

The site and surroundings

The site was a flat, narrow strip within a larger agricultural field, with a hedge, fence, existing access and rural surroundings.

“Site Details The site is a rectangular shaped site located between, No 73 and 77and is a flat strip of ground which is fairly level with the public road. It is part of a larger agricultural field, located to the rear. The eastern boundary consists of an established hedge. The boundary to the west consists of a post and wire fence. There is an existing laneway into the site and some fairly mature vegetation located along part of the roadside boundary.”

“Proposed development Site for dwelling and domestic garage…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

There was no planning history on the site, while an adjoining dwelling site had previously been approved subject to retaining this land agriculturally.

“Planning History None on the site. L/2002/1178/O & L/2005/2622/RM– Site for dwelling. Granted adjoining to the west. It was conditioned on this application that the land contained on this application site should be retained in its present agricultural use.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that the site was not a suitable small gap and that development would create ribbon and suburban-style development harming rural character.

“As stated previously in the report, the surrounding area retains a rural character and it has not been destroyed by a build-up of development. To allow this gap to be developed with a new house would result in the loss of this gap and create a ribbon of houses along the road and create a suburban style of build-up of development.”

“For the reasons listed previously in the report and having regards to the guidance in BoT and the Court of Appeal decision, the development of the gap for a dwelling would create a ribbon of development. This will result in suburban style of build-up of development when viewed with existing buildings.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Water, environmental and roads consultees raised no objection subject to advice or conditions, including required visibility splays for access.

“NIEA Water Management Unit advise that they have considered the impacts of the proposal on the surface water environment and, on the basis of the information provided, is content with the proposal subject to Conditions, the applicant noting the advice contained in the Explanatory Note, the applicant referring and adhering to Standing Advice, and any relevant statutory permissions being obtained.”

“DFI Roads has advised it offers no objection to the proposal subject to a condition. Visibility splays of 2.4m X 33.0m (south westerly direction) and 2.4m X 60.0m (north easterly direction) would be required to provide safe access. The issues raised in consultee’s responses are considered further within the report.”

Officer report

Objections received

A neighbour raised concerns about privacy, rural character, sunlight, overcrowding, noise, landscaping and visibility, while an MLA urged refusal under several policies.

“The second objection cites the following issues: Loss of sunlight - invested significantly in removing trees along the boundary to enjoy increased sunlight, which would be compromised by the new build. Overcrowding - site is considered too narrow, and the proposed proximity of houses is out of character with the surrounding area. Property value - the development would negatively affect the value of their home.”

“Consideration The impact upon nearby dwellings is considered within the report along with consideration against policies DE03, DE05, HOU13 and SP01. Devaluation of a property is not by itself a material consideration rather it is any consequential loss of amenity that would be caused. It would be anticipated there would be noise during any construction but this would be temporary in duration.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supported the application, and a neighbour opposed it because of privacy, overcrowding and the area changing from rural to suburban.

Members’ discussion

The planning officer explained the refusal reasons and offered to work with the applicant on an alternative site if the application were refused.

“In response to the speakers’ comments, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the objector lived in the property to the right of the proposal. He also noted that there was no issue of prominence with this proposal, however, there were other reasons for refusal which were extensively set out within the report.”

“In response to a query from a Member, the Principal Planning Officer stated that if the application was to be refused that Planning Officers were happy to work with the applicant to try to find an alternative site. The Principal Planning Officer also noted that the ‘Hold’ option was available to Members.”

Minutes

Why the decision was held

Members agreed to hold the application for two weeks to allow discussion of possible alternative options with the applicant and agent.

“A Member proposed that the application be held for 2 weeks as allowed in the Planning Committee Protocol to allow discussion of potential alternative options with the applicant/agent. This proposal was seconded by another Member. All other Members were in support of the proposal.”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor Irvine, seconded by Councillor Devine Gallagher, and unanimously agreed, that the above application would be held for 2 weeks…”

Minutes