Single countryside apartment at 4 Derrycrin Road, Cookstown

What was proposed

The application sought to retain the change of use from an existing office and workshop to one apartment for two employees.

“Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for a proposed change of use from existing office/workshop to single apartment. Following a site visit, it was observed that the change of use has already occurred, and consent was sought and secured from the Agent to amend the proposal to include ‘retention of’.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The building is an engineering business in open countryside east of Coagh, with nearby homes, agricultural land, parking and storage areas.

“Case Officer Report Site Location Plan This material is based upon Crown Copyright and is reproduced with the permission of Land & Property Services under delegated authority NIMA CS&LA581 from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright and database rights.”

“Drums UK Ltd. The building present as a two-storey building, with a single storey office projection to the front, and a side return with a large roller door, all finished in a smooth grey render, and tin roofing. The building is set within a large, concreted area, comprising staff and customer parking at the front (east), with some storage to the side (north) and rear (west).”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal contrary to countryside policies because the building was not locally important and the apartment was for more than one employee.

“Provision should also be made for the conversion of a locally important building to provide more than one dwelling where the building is of sufficient size; the conversion involves minimal intervention; and the intensity of the use is considered appropriate to the locality ’.”

“Recommendation: Having carried out an appropriate assessment of this development proposal against prevailing planning policy and other material planning considerations, the proposal is considered contrary to Policies CTY 1, CTY 4 and CTY 7 of PPS 21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside, and the SPPS Edition 2, and is therefore recommended for Refusal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health raised no objection subject to sound insulation and waste arrangements, while NI Water offered no objection.

“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. CTY 14 refers to prominence, suburban build up, traditional settlement patterns, ribbon development, and the impact of ancillary works.”

“EHS further advised that the applicant must ensure adequate waste storage and disposal arrangements are in place for prospective residents. NI Water offered no objection to the proposal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning officer presented the application, and council officers answered members’ questions about discussions and policy interpretation.

What members debated

Members discussed reducing the proposal, housing one employee or a family, alternative accommodation, rural policy and possible building control concerns.

“[name withheld] (PPO) referred to Councillor Bell’s point regarding if the applicant had of known that the policy test was based just on one person and not two. The discussion with the case officer, which will be verified again, due to no written supporting statement, but applicant did indicate that it was for two employees that she had arranged to come over from overseas and this process to the best of her knowledge has taken place.”

“The Head of Local Planning (HLP) referred to last comment where it states that this was for a dwelling for a non-agricultural business. It is not a dwelling but an apartment and took on point made about an employee having a family and more than one person residing there, but they policy is not unfettered apartments in the countryside, but we will end up with that situation, and we are too aware of the rural dynamic within the district.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Cuthbertson proposed deferral for an office meeting, Councillor S McPeake seconded it, and the motion was resolved.

“Councillor Cuthbertson said that it may be worthwhile deferring the application for an office meeting to discuss with the applicant what is and what is not available.”

Minutes

What was decided

The application was deferred for an office meeting to discuss whether there was scope to make the proposal workable.

“The Chair agreed with the member and felt it would be beneficial to have a further discussion to see if there could be a potential for scope to make this workable.”

Minutes