Replacement dwelling and garage at Site approximately 150 metres north west of No.35 Doocrock Road, Dromore

What was proposed

The application proposed an off-site replacement dwelling and detached domestic garage.

“The proposal site is located approximately 150 metres north west of No.35 Doocrock Road, Dromore. The site is considered to be open countryside as per the Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy 2030. The site is accessed from the minor public Doocrock Road. The site at currently part of an agricultural field with the dwelling which is to be replaced by this application located approximately 150m south east of the application site.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found that the proposal would not cluster with existing buildings, would be prominent and poorly integrated, and failed rural replacement dwelling tests.

“In assessing the proposal, it is clear that the building to be replaced exhibits the essential characteristics of a dwelling with the building having been a traditional shaped rural dwelling. The dwelling appears fully intact and currently lived in, it is acceptable that the existing building was a dwelling.”

“Criteria (c) of the policy also requires the replacement dwelling to not have a visual impact significantly greater than the existing building. In this respect the proposal is offsite and will have a greater visual impact as the site is an existing agricultural field with limited integration nor does not cluster, consolidate and group with existing established dwelling and/or associated farm buildings. In this regard the proposal fails criteria (c) of the policy.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

NI Water and DFI Roads were content, while no letters of representation were received.

“CONSULTATIONS NI Water – content DFI Roads – content…”

“REPRESENTATIONS No letters of representation have been received…”

Officer report

Who spoke in support

The agent and the applicants addressed the committee in support of the application.

Supporters’ reasons

They said the existing dwelling was in poor condition, the farmyard was unsafe and flood-prone, and the proposed site avoided flooding and farm operations.

“The existing laneway frequently flooded, as do most fields between the house and the public road; • He believed, the proposed site was the only field that did not flood and alternative sites identified as A, B, and C were assessed but found unsuitable, in his opinion due to soft ground and flooding risk and would require access via the existing laneway, which was prone to flooding and unsuitable for regular vehicles; • The application had been assessed under the Plan…”

Minutes

Members’ discussion

Planning officers said alternative sites were available, surface water flooding could be addressed, and the proposal failed policy requirements.

“The Principal Planning Officer stated that alternative sites existed which complied with all relevant planning policies and he clarified that the DfI flood map identified the area as located in a climate change pluvial flooding zone (surface water flooding), and under current policy, development within this zone was permissible for new housing.”

Minutes

Why the decision was deferred

A member proposed holding the application for two weeks to discuss possible alternative options with the applicant and agent.

“A Member proposed that the issuing of 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 with the applicant/agent and this was seconded by another Member.”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor Maguire, seconded by Councillor O’Reilly, and unanimously agreed, that the issuing of 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 with the applicant/agent. (”

Minutes