Mechanics workshop to gym at 50M North West of 52 Killycolpy Road Ardboe

What was proposed

The application sought to change an existing mechanics workshop into a gym.

“LA09/2024/1281/F ACKN Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: November 2025 Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2024/1281/F Target Date: February 2025 Proposal: Change of use from existing mechanics workshop to gym Location: 50M North West of 52 Killycolpy Road Ardboe…”

“The site is a 0.09ha parcel of land located at No.52C Killycolpy Road, within the rural remainder approximately 3km south-west of Ardboe as defined in the Cookstown Area Plan 2010. Currently there is a shed on site which at the time of site inspection was in the middle of being renovated, and an associated yard area. The site lies approximately 60m from the public road, accessed via an existing concrete laneway.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Earlier applications covered a dwelling, workshop, storage and building retention, while two enforcement cases were under investigation.

“Section 6(4) requires that the determination of proposals must be in accordance with the LDP unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Relevant Histories Ref: I/2002/0056/O Proposals: Site for dwelling Decision: PG Decision Date: 27-MAY-02 Ref: I/2010/0092/F Proposals: Retention of workshop, office and covered storage area Decision: WDN Decision Date: Ref: I/2010/0541/Q Proposals: Development of Site Decision: ELR Decision Date: 09-DEC-10 Ref: I/2010/0546/LDE Page…”

“Ref: I/2010/0048CA Breach Type: COU_A Officer: 100409 Ref: LA09/2025/0016/CA Breach Type: OP Officer: Decision: Currently under investigation by Council Ref: LA09/2025/0065/CA (adjacent to site, under control of applicant) Breach Type: OP Officer: Decision: Currently under investigation by Council Representations Five (5) Neighbouring properties were identified to be notified and press advertisement has been carried out in line with the Council ’s statutory duty.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found that the 24-hour gym would affect nearby residents, create noise and be inappropriate in the countryside.

“Figure 1 – dwellings within 75m Figure 2 – dwellings in close proximity Objections have been received from some of these residents who are affected by noise disturbance from the gym which is fully operational at present, and there is a current enforcement case ongoing at this site regarding alleged detrimental impacts of noise on nearby residential properties.”

“I am not satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenities of these residents in close proximity to the proposal. (e) the nature and scale of any proposed non-residential use is appropriate to a countryside location; I do not consider that the proposed 24 hour a day, 7 days a week gym is an appropriate non-residential use in the countryside, particularly in close proximity to a number of third-party properties who have raised concerns about noise levels…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Five objection letters raised safety, facility, road and noise concerns; DFI Roads had no road-safety objection and Environmental Health recommended approval with conditions.

“I note that the Environmental Health Department have also been sent this objection letter, and they may wish to investigate or comment further. DFI Roads have been consulted with some of these objections and do not raise any objections on road safety grounds. The noise issues are applicable and have been taken into consideration…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The planning officer presented the report, while the head of legal and policy discussed operating hours, access controls and nuisance concerns.

The committee’s vote

Councillor Robinson proposed the officer recommendation, Councillor Buchanan seconded it, and the committee resolved to refuse the application.

“Councillor Robinson stated that whilst he was sympathetic that there has been a business at the location in the past there appears to be no consideration of the complaints to date and it is difficult to see how this will change going forward and on that basis he proposed the officer recommendation.”

“Councillor J Buchanan seconded Councillor Robinson’s proposal.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was refused because the proposal failed the stated countryside and economic-development policy criteria.

“Ireland) 1995 (as amended). This proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the features, conservation objectives or status of any of these sites. As the proposal fails to meet criteria (d) and (e) of CTY 4 of PPS 21 it also fails to meet Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21. Additionally, it fails to meet criteria (a) (b) and (e) of Policy PED 9 of PPS 4 and I therefore recommend refusal.”

“Reason 3 The proposal is contrary to criteria (a) (b) and (e) of Policy PED 9 - General Criteria for Economic Development of Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning and Economic Development in that the development would, if permitted, be incompatible with surrounding uses, harm the amenities of nearby residents and create a noise nuisance. Signature(s): Deirdre Laverty Date: October 2025”

Officer report