Domestic garage and store at 400 Boa Island Road, Belleek

What was proposed

The application proposed a detached domestic garage, domestic store, additional road entrance and extension of the existing curtilage.

“Site Details The proposed site is at an existing dwelling in the countryside located on the Boa Island Road.”

“Proposed development Full application for the erection of a detached domestic garage, domestic store, additional road entrance and extension of curtilage.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the buildings subordinate, suitably designed and integrated, with no unacceptable effects on amenity, rural character, visual amenity or road safety.

“Outside the construction stage of development where there may be some short term and temporary impacts from works, the proposal will not cause a detrimental impact through odour, noise, vibration or other forms of disturbance, forms of pollution; and general disturbance. Nor will it unacceptably affect the existing use of land and buildings, public safety (including road safety) and visual amenity.”

“The design and finishes of the two proposed buildings display vernacular characteristics appropriate to the host property and the rural setting. Finishes are of a high quality. The buildings are subordinate in scale to the dwelling with a lower height. The proposal complies with criteria (a) of Policy DE02.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

DfI Roads was content subject to a condition, while one objection raised concerns about privacy, dominance, rural character, integration, visual impact and policy compliance.

“Consideration of issues • Area of Residential Amenity Impact: Due to separation distances (approx. 28m), and higher ground levels (approx. 4m-5m) of the dwelling to the rear (no.398), there will be no unacceptable affect to residential amenity by overlooking, overshadowing or dominance. • Rural Character Concerns/Integration Issues/Ribbon development: The visual impact is considered within the report. For the reasons listed the proposal meets the relevant policy tests.”

Officer report

What people said

The supporters said the buildings fitted the existing buildings and would not affect the neighbour’s main views, while objectors disputed their scale, siting and impact.

Members discussed the impacts

Members discussed residential amenity, views, the previous planning history, the attic window, the buildings’ scale and whether opaque glass should be required.

“The separation distance and difference in site levels were considered sufficient to ensure no adverse affect on residential amenity; • While there may be an impact on the neighbour’s view, what was material was the impact on amenity; • The proposal would elongate the development along the edge of the road with two new buildings and a new access, however, it remained as one curtilage and one property with no subdivision between the two; • The proposal would read as a group of…”

“However, Planning Officers considered that the difference in site levels and the attic-level location of the window within a garage meant that no unacceptable impact on residential amenity would arise; • The removal of the window could not be secured by planning condition, however, Members may impose a requirement for it to be fitted with opaque glass and retained as such.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application by majority, subject to the four conditions recommended by officers.

“A Member proposed that, in light of the discussion that had taken place and the clarification sought and explained, the application be granted planning permission as recommended by Planning Officers.”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor O’Reilly, seconded by Councillor McClaughry, and agreed by the majority, that the above application be approved planning permission subject to the four conditions listed within Paragraph 8.0 of Appendix 1. (”

Minutes