Four apartments at 27 Oldtown Street, Cookstown

What was proposed

The application sought four one-bedroom apartments within the rear of a former bar, with two on the ground floor and two above.

“LA09/2024/0972/F ACKN Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: November 2025 Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2024/0972/F Target Date: December 2024 Proposal: Change of use of former bar business to 4 no.”

“A third unit was also proposed at that time but was removed from the proposal as it was considered unacceptable as it could only be accessed via a shared laneway and through the rear yard. This proposed development now seeks to change the use of the rear of the former public house premises into four additional apartments, two units on the ground floor and two units on the first floor.”

Officer report

The site and access

The two-storey former bar contains a flower shop and nail bar, with apartments reached through shared lanes, yards and stairways.

“Characteristics of the Site and Area The is currently occupied by a two storey building which was formerly known as ‘Miltys Bar’ located on the Oldtown Street. The building appears to be partially vacant at present with Yana Flowers operating from the front left-hand side and Posh Nail Studio operating from the right-hand side at the front.”

“There are two accesses proposed to Unit 3, one access is taken from the common access laneway along the left-hand side between no’ 29 and 31 Oldtown Street and through a shared rear yard, whilst the second access is taken from the alleyway at the rear of the commercial premises at No’s 15-23 Oldtown Street. That second access also provides the only access to Unit 4 which is located to the rear of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because three apartments would be wholly at the rear without public-street access and would not provide a quality residential environment.

“The proposed development meets all the above criteria, with the exception of the last point in that three of the four apartments proposed are wholly in the rear of the property and do not have access to the public street. Those three apartments require the occupants to gain access through communal alleyways, through communal service yards, leading past commercial refuge bins and extractor fans from hot-food takeaways and long the rear of third-party commercial properties.”

Officer report

The main concerns

The proposed rear access passed close to commercial bins and extractor fans, while several windows faced solid walls and the development lacked amenity space.

“(c) adequate provision is made for public and private open space and landscaped areas as an integral part of the development. There is no provision for either public/communal or private amenity space. There has been no provision made for open areas for any activities including clothes drying or bicycle storage. This would result in any occupant having to store cycles either in the apartment or in the communal hallway.”

“(h) the design and layout will not create conflict with adjacent land uses and there is no unacceptable adverse effect on existing or proposed properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance; The provision of apartments to the rear of the proposed site may result in nuisance issues to the occupants of the apartments at the rear of the site (Units 3 and 4) as the access to these involves…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning officer presented the application and advised that refusal was recommended.

Members’ discussion

Councillor Clarke said the apartments might attract residents but considered the design poor, and proposed refusal; Councillor Bell seconded it.

“Councillor Clarke stated that given the current times there would probably be people who would live in these apartments but that as outlined in the report and by the officer the proposal is not a good quality design and he would therefore propose the recommendation to refuse.”

“Councillor Bell seconded Councillor Clarke’s proposal.”

Minutes

The vote

Members resolved to refuse the application on the officer’s grounds and the amended first reason.

“Resolved That planning application LA09/2024/0972/F be refused on grounds stated in the officer’s report and amended reason as set out above.”

Minutes