Domestic store and curtilage at Land approx. 110m NE of 17 Derrybard Road, Fintona

What was proposed

The application sought to retain an existing domestic store and extend the curtilage of the existing home.

“This is a full application for the retention of existing domestic store and extension of existing curtilage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was in the countryside outside a settlement, with the store reached by a laneway and screened by trees and hedging.

“The site is located at land approx. 110m NE of no.17 Derrybard Road, in the Townland of Dunnamona Glebe, approx. 0.5 mile East of Fintona. The proposed site encompasses the domestic property (dwelling/sheds) at no.17 Derrybard Rd and a laneway with shed set back approx. 200m from the public road, to the NE of the dwelling. The shed to the NE is primarily served through the domestic property at no.17.”

“The site is located within the countryside, outside any defined settlement as defined under the Omagh Area Plan. Development pressure in the area is low and dispersed, but increases on the approach to Omagh. Land to the West/NW is defined by commercial peat extraction. The wider area is defined by open countryside, lower lying land. There are a network of streams/rivers and smaller loughs which drain into the larger Upper Lough Erne system.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permission for the buildings as an agricultural structure was refused, and an enforcement case concerned an allegedly unauthorised shed and foundations.

“Enforcement Application Number: LA10/2020/0109/CA Decision: Decision Date: Proposal: Alleged unauthorised shed and foundations (McKnight - Application under consideration) Planning Application Number: LA10/2021/0042/F Decision: Permission Refused Decision Date: November 2022 Proposal: Retention of single storey agricultural building for the use of storage of farm feed and farm machinery (tractor and implements) - receipt of additional information PLANNING CONSTRAINTS…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found the buildings too large, detached and agricultural in character to be ancillary domestic buildings, contrary to the relevant policies.

“The proposal relates to the retention of two buildings for domestic storage and an associated extension of the curtilage of the existing dwelling. As such, Policy HOU05 and Appendix 2 of the Local Development Plan form the relevant policy context. The buildings provide approximately 235 square metres of floorspace and have a substantial overall footprint with a height of around 5 metres.”

“The siting, scale, form and design of the buildings cannot reasonably be regarded as ancillary to the dwelling at No. Derrybard Road. The buildings are physically and visually detached from the host dwelling, located approximately 110 metres away on land that is agricultural in character.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Two objections raised concerns about history, use, siting, land use, risks, amenity, environment, information and procedure, while one letter supported retention.

“1-Previous Planning History 2-Concerns About Intended Use 3-Siting 4-Land Use 5-Flood & Health Risks 6-Amenity Impacts 7-Environment 8-Incorrect Information 9-Procedural Concerns…”

“Consideration of issues 1-Previous Planning History Sheds were erected without permission, previously refused (LA10/2021/0042/F) and Refusal upheld by PAC. Current application seeks to retain the same sheds as domestic, it is considered that the scale, appearance and separation of the buildings to be retained from the host property is not domestic in nature and contrary to Policy HOU05 and Appendix 2 of the LDP.”

Officer report

Supporters addressed members

The agent and an MLA said the store was screened, suitable for machinery storage, visually integrated and unlikely to cause noise or other disturbance.

Members considered the issues

The planning officer said the proposal did not cluster or visually link with established buildings and that its proposed use and lack of electricity did not change the refusal recommendation.

“In response to comments from the Speakers, the Principal Planning Officer reminded Members that when considering an application, it was not how many policies were met or not met but whether or not an application met the Plan Strategy.”

“In response to queries from Members, the Principal Planning Officer stated that from the public views this proposal did not cluster or visually link with other established buildings and that there was a separation distance between the proposal and the adjacent buildings, therefore, failing to meet the clustering policy, as already noted in the PAC Commissioner’s report.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A proposal to follow the officers’ recommendation was seconded and agreed by a majority of members.

“A Member proposed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. This proposal was seconded by another Member. The Chair put the proposal by…”

“Councillor O’Reilly, seconded by Councillor Maguire to Members and the majority of Members were in agreement.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused planning permission for the two reasons listed in the agenda appendix.

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor O’Reilly, seconded by Councillor Maguire, and by the majority of votes cast, that the above application be refused planning permission, for the two reasons listed within Paragraph 8.0 of Appendix 1. (”

Minutes