Dwelling and domestic garage at Site immediately adjacent to 24A Lisnanane Lane, Cookstown

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the overall gap too large for the policy, and found the proposal would add ribbon development and intrude into open countryside.

“…rural character of an area. As this is an outline application, the details of the design, access and landscaping would be reviewed at reserved matters stage if approval were to be granted. The site benefits from established vegetation along its boundaries of the site which would aid with integration at this site.”

“Reason 3 The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY2a of Planning Policy Statement 21, New Dwellings in Existing Clusters in that the cluster is not associated with a focal point and is not located at a cross-roads, the proposed site is not bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster and does not provide a suitable degree of enclosure and the dwelling would if permitted visually intrude into the open countryside.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The planning officer presented the report, while the Chair, the head of planning and councillors asked questions and proposed actions.

What members discussed

Members discussed whether the applicant should have more time, but officers said the site was clearly not a gap site and no workable route to approval was apparent.

“[name withheld] (PPO) advised that there would be no policies that would appropriate to consider or discuss with the agent. The application itself has been put in for a gap site, it has been assessed and clearly not a gap site. It was assessed under the clustering policy in CTY2A, even though this was not asked for, but could not see it as a fit for that policy.”

“The HLP said that she was unsure as the case officer had assessed the site as part of a cluster and they wished to have it as part of a gap site. She said that there was enough information there to show it was not a gap site as it is too big. She felt that there was nothing further that could be done at this stage that would make the application an approval and agreed with case officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to defer the application was withdrawn, and members then proposed and seconded refusal.

“Councillor J Buchanan proposed to defer the application for one month to allow for the applicant time to liaise with planning department.”

“Seconded by Councillor Robinson to defer the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse planning application LA09/2025/0764/O.

“Resolved That planning application LA09/2025/0764/O be refused.”

Minutes