Two-storey rural dwelling at Lands adjacent & to The North-east of No. 97 Coagh Road and between No's 109&109A and No's 99&99A Coagh Road

“LA09/2025/1040/O ACKN Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: April 2026 Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2025/1040/O Target Date: January 2026 Proposal: Proposed site for 2 storey dwelling and garage/store under policy "CTY2a- Dwelling within an existing cluster" Location: Lands adjacent & to The North-east of No.”

“The site is a 0.78ha parcel of ground located on the minor Coagh Road and lies approximately 2.2km north-east of Stewartstown within the rural countryside, outside any defined settlement limit as identified in the Cookstown Area Plan 2010. The site lies adjacent to and east/north-east of Curglassan Mission Hall.”

“…appropriate design. As this is an outline application the design elements of CTY 13 cannot be dealt with under this application but will be considered under any RM or Full application. CTY 14 states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area. I have no concerns with ribbon development or build up.”

“Reason 1 The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY 1 - Development in the Countryside of Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.”

“The HSP stated that the red line on this application is unusual as it attempts to bring an obvious cluster to link to 3 dwellings. The HSP stated that the site is removed from the cluster and therefore fails the first test of policy CTY2a. The HSP stated that there also aren’t enough buildings within the cluster to the South of the site. The HSP stated that the application does not meet with policy and agreed with the officer recommendation for refusal.”

“[name withheld] stated that the red line of the site is significant and that an indicative house has been sited with no communication to say it was not acceptable. [name withheld] stated that if a house was sited in the NW corner of the site against the cluster then it would meet all the policy and that he would welcome further discussion in relation to the acceptable siting of the dwelling.”

“The Chair, Councillor S McPeake proposed a site visit in order to see site, access arrangements, boundaries and potential for amended siting.”

“Councillor Bell seconded Councillor S McPeake’s proposal.”

“Resolved That planning application LA09/2025/1040/O be deferred for a site visit.”