Dwelling and garage at Opposite 3 Belagherty Road, Magherafelt

What was proposed

The outline application proposed a site for a dwelling and garage opposite an existing property.

“Summary of Consultee Responses: Description of Proposal This is an outline application for proposed site for dwelling and garage.”

“Deferred Consideration: The application site is a 0.38 hectare parcel of agricultural land located to the West of and at the opposite side of the road from number 3 Belagherty Road. It is just outside the defined settlement limit of Ballyfifford and abuts existing development within the settlement. The proposal has been reconsidered under two policies contained within PPS 21.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was agricultural land outside the settlement limit, adjoining existing development and near a dwelling, farm buildings, a church and church hall.

“In this particular case the applicant makes a case that there is an existing cluster of development consisting of 4 dwellings, a Church, a Church Hall and 3 farm buildings, all of which are located within the settlement limit of Ballylifford along with 3 dwellings outside the settlement.”

“…part of a significantly larger agricultural field, topography of the site is relatively flat. The eastern boundary is defined by a hedgerow, the southern boundary is defined by a group of agricultural farm buildings which are located within the settlement limits of Ballylifford and the remaining boundaries are currently undefined.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because there was no qualifying cluster, the proposal would intrude into the countryside, and it would blur the settlement boundary.

“Accordingly, there are only three dwellings outside the settlement limit of Ballylifford, and the garages or outbuildings associated with them cannot be considered as buildings for the purposes of establishing a cluster of development. I therefore do not consider there to be a cluster of development at this location. • The cluster appears as a visual entity in the local landscape; The second criteria requires a cluster to appear as a visual entity in the local landscape.”

“…considerations pertaining to this proposal, I recommend that this application be refused planning permission. Refusal Reasons Reason 1 The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY 1 of Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that there are no overriding reasons why the proposed development is essential and could not be located in a settlement.”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

Three neighbouring properties were notified, no objections or support letters were received, and consultees raised no concerns.

“The proposal is contrary to CTY15 as the proposed development mars the distinction of the settlement of Ballylifford and the rural countryside. No objections have been received to date. DFI Roads and Historic Environment Division have been consulted and have raised no concerns.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, while the Chair, three councillors and the head of planning expressed views.

Members’ discussion

Members considered that the small site would not harm the settlement boundary and that the dwelling would fit with nearby development.

“The Chair stated he was at the site visit and came away from that meeting feeling there would be a positive outcome. Councillor S McPeake stated it is for Members to decide whether a dwelling on that site would mar the distinction between settlement and open countryside and that the broad feeling of Members at the visit was that it wouldn’t.”

“The HLP stated that officers are guided by lines on a map and that she was mindful that the dwelling on the opposite side of the road had similar circumstances but that there was a dwelling to the North of it. For this application that is not the case and the HLP felt that in the near future there will be a further application for the site between this proposal and a dwelling to the North West.”

Minutes

What was decided

The application was deferred so the applicant could submit a Biodiversity Checklist before it returned to committee.

“The HLP advised that it had just been pointed out that a Biodiversity Checklist had not been completed and asked that the application be deferred again seek this…”

Minutes