Infill dwelling and garage at Between 23 & 27 Levally Road, Drumberny, Enniskillen

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for an infill dwelling and detached domestic garage.

“This is an outline application for a site for an infill dwelling and detached domestic garage.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no material planning history on the site or nearby.

“There is no planning history material to the application on site or nearby.”

Officer report

The officer recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm rural character, create ribbon development and remove an important visual break.

“Impact on Rural Character The third test in Paragraph 2 is that infilling will be permitted where the proposed site will not detract from the rural character. The rural character test in HOU13 is similar to the policy tests in DE05 ‘Rural Character.”

“Furthermore, when considered alongside existing development including two dwellings and outbuildings at 31 and 33 Levally Road further north west along the public road, the development could potentially lead to another infill opportunity and add to a ribbon of roadside dwellings.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

DfI Roads raised no remaining issue subject to visibility splays, while NI Water said the public water main could serve the development.

“DfI Roads initially advised that there were issues in respect of the proposal but following the submission of information by the Agent, they responded again and raised no issue subject to a standard planning condition requiring the provision of visibility splays of 2.4m by 45.0m (southeasterly direction) and 2.4m by 60.0m (northwesterly direction).”

“NI Water advise there is a public water main within 20m of the proposed development boundary which can adequately service these proposals and they recommend approval subject to standard planning conditions and response specific conditions. These do not meet the tests for conditions and NIW has been advised of this.”

Officer report

Objections and other comments

Three representations questioned the proposal’s clarity and raised concerns about landscape, rural character, privacy, traffic, water supply and sewage.

“All three representations raise comments citing confusion about whether the application is for one dwelling or two and that this ambiguity leads to concerns that the proposal is not presented transparently and that essential details (height, scale, massing, materials, orientation) are missing.”

“Buildings on this stretch of road would harm rural character. The objections also mention potential impacts on privacy, traffic, water supply and foul sewage but the objectors state they cannot properly assess these due to lack of design detail. One representation notes a delay in receiving notification of the application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, and a councillor’s supporting letter was read to the committee.

What members debated

Members disagreed about whether the buildings formed a visible continuous group and whether the site was an infill gap or an important rural break.

“In response to Members’ queries, the Principal Planning Officer stated that: • The Duff judgement provided guidance on the assessment and determination of similar planning applications and established a series of tests for policy interpretation and the Lead Legal Services Officer had previously confirmed that the judgement applied to the Council’s Plan Strategy; • In applying policy, the key consideration was whether a clearly visible line of development existed when viewed…”

“Consequently, the site did not read as part of a continuous built up frontage; • The introduction of a dwelling at this location would fail to respect the existing settlement pattern, would erode the visual break between buildings, and would have a detrimental impact on rural character; • While it was possible to respond to a change in future circumstances, Members must consider the application based on what was before them today; and • While the three buildings were evident…”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to grant permission was seconded and agreed unanimously.

“A Member expressed the view that a continuous line of buildings was visible when travelling along the road, noting that the gable of one dwelling could be seen above the hedge. He further considered that a second dwelling on the hill would also be visible in the absence of intervening trees. On this basis, the Member proposed that planning permission be granted.”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor McClaughry, seconded by Councillor Mahon, and unanimously agreed, that the above application be approved planning permission, and that powers to attach conditions be delegated back to Planning Officers. (”

Minutes