Dwelling and garage at 90M South of 160 Ardboe Road, Cookstown

The site and surroundings

The site was a flat roadside area with low hedging, rural surroundings, scattered buildings and views towards Lough Neagh.

“Characteristics of the Site and Area The red line of the site includes a roadside portion of lands located approx. 90M South of 160 Ardboe Road, Cookstown. The site itself is quite flat throughout and has existing low level hedging along the roadside boundary, with the remainder of the boundaries currently appearing undefined.”

Officer report

Arguments for the proposal

The agent and supporting councillors said the floodplain limited realistic development, two sites could fit, and the view and rural character would remain protected.

“[name withheld] said that the concept plan which he had submitted to planners shows just how two sites work in the gap as it would be physically impossible to put any more sites in there. The floodplain comes right up to the back and in his opinion constitutes a good scheme. The view across Lough Neagh would still be maintained with the gap between the houses.”

“Councillor McAleer advised that the key issue here is whether approving this proposal would result in overdevelopment or ribbon development. Having attended the site visit in March and reviewed the supporting evidence, a significant proportion of this site lies within a floodplain. The member stated that this is a permanent physical constraint which materially limits where development could realistically take place.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The committee heard from the agent, a councillor supporting the proposal, the planning officer and the Head of Local Planning.

Members debated the gap

Members debated whether the gap should be judged by its physical constraints, its appearance on the ground, and the policy’s visual test.

“The HLP advised that there wasn’t as the policy doesn’t refer to the actual specifics of the maths of it as it was on the ground. The reason why the mathematical aspect of it matters is that it gives something to measure it against. If there were buildings north and south of this site, buildings on plots that have a frontage that would allow two of those to fit into this gap without another gap.”

“The HLP advised it was proposed to approve a development of an infill and having a condition on it for two and no more, that would indicate to her that a third can fit and if a third can fit then it’s not a small gap site and does not meet the test of CTY8. Approval can be granted for one single house but cannot be conditioned for no more to be built on that plot. It’s a matter of whether the single house is either acceptable in terms of CTY8 or it’s not.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted on competing proposals to refuse the application or overturn the recommendation and approve it.

“The Chair advised the committee that there were two proposals in front of members here tonight, one to refuse the application and the other to approve.”

“The Chair advised that as there were two proposals in front of members here tonight a vote would be carried out to approve or refuse the application.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to biodiversity issues being addressed and the application returning for consideration.

“The Chair said that he had been advised by the HLP that this application cannot be outwardly approved here tonight as it has be subject to biodiversity checklists and environmental assessment has been kept back until a decision was imminent. No matter what way this proposal goes, it cannot be outwardly approved and needs to be brought back again subject to a favourable environmental assessment.”

“Resolved That planning application LA09/2024/1168/O be approved subject to the application being brought back once Biodiversity issues has been addressed.”

Minutes

Why members overturned refusal

Members considered that the policy did not specify a metres-based test and that the gap appeared smaller on the ground than in photographs.

“The HLP said that a rationale was required for a reason why the application was to be overturned from refusal to approval. Based on what members have heard from…”

“Councillor Bell advised that nowhere in the policy does it state that there's a guidance on metreage and was his view that the gap isn't as big when you’re standing on the ground as what it would appear in the photographs. The member said that the building to the south is quite a small building and if you take the proportionality of that and its frontage, it's not the same as the property to the north.”

Minutes