Raised patio and boundary wall at 40 Ranfurly Road, Dungannon

Planning and construction history

Construction had started before the application, and the site had no relevant earlier applications, although nearby properties had planning history.

“Planning History A planning search identified a number of previous applications. However, all of these relate to adjacent/neighbouring properties, with no previous planning applications returned relevant to this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the patio and wall were considered appropriate in scale and appearance and unlikely to cause significant privacy, light or amenity harm.

“The raised patio area will have a concrete slab finish, with the bock retaining wall having a dashed and painted finish. The size and scale of the patio would not be out of scale for the property and is similar to patios in several other houses in the area. The dashed and painted finish to the retaining wall would also not be out of character for the area.”

“Boundary wall from neighbouring property [name withheld] feel that given the above, the development does not meet APPS7 as it unduly affects the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents. [name withheld] also indicate that the wall and part of the patio are built on their land.”

Officer report

Objections from neighbours

Two objections raised concerns about privacy, disturbance, overshadowing, dominance, appearance, land ownership and the safety of the wall.

“As detailed above, it is considered that the wall will not unduly create additional overshadowing and any impact due to dominance has to be balanced with providing privacy to both parties. It is recognised that the extension to the existing wall between the properties is currently unsightly. However, it will be a condition of approval that the finish to the wall (on both sides) will be to match the existing wall.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A planning officer presented the recommendation, while councillors and senior officers discussed ownership, planning considerations, Building Control and responsibility.

Members debated safety concerns

Several councillors considered the wall substandard and unsafe, while officers advised that structural integrity and ownership were outside planning considerations.

“Councillor Varsani stated she attended that site visit and that she would have thought a wall that is substandard and has been deemed to be substandard would be a material consideration if this application is to build more which she felt will put more pressure on the wall.”

“The HSP stated that there was a clear consideration of the structural integrity of the wall after the site visit but that structural integrity lies outside planning consideration and is a separate regulatory regime under Building Control. The HSP stated he would be highly reluctant to try to persuade Members to refuse the application because of the way it is built as there is nowhere within planning policy…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to defer the application for further consideration after a councillor proposed deferral and another councillor seconded it.

“Councillor Black proposed that the application be deferred for further consideration of the situation and to determine if anything further can be done beyond what has been discussed tonight. The Councillor stated he was not keen to approve the application because of the structural integrity point and that it doesn’t sit well with him that Council can walk away knowing what state the wall is in and the potential consequences of that and have no responsibility.”

“Councillor Varsani seconded Councillor Black’s proposal. The Councillor stated she had never seen a case like this one and felt that everyone in the Chamber should reflect on the strong feeling and serious concerns in relation to this application and that it doesn’t sit well with any of the Councillors. Councillor Varsani felt that the further investigations will be worthwhile.”

Minutes