Rural house and garage at 100 Meters South of No. 32 Glenvale Road, Newry City

What was proposed

The application sought a replacement house type and detached garage, with additional landscaping and associated site works.

“Description of Proposal Proposed Change of House Type of Rural Detached Dwelling House and Detached Domestic Garage in Substitution of Implemented Planning Application (P/2006/1822/RM), Additional Landscaping and Associated Site Works (amended plans)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The roadside rural plot lies outside settlement limits, slopes southwards and includes an existing field-gate access and boundary trees.

“The roadside boundary is comprised of a grass verge and post and wire fencing. Trees are located along the western boundary whilst the southern and eastern boundaries are undefined.”

“Access to the site is available via an existing field gate. The site sits below the level of the road and slopes downward in a north to south direction.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and applications

Earlier permissions for a dwelling and garage expired, while a 2018 change-of-house-type application was refused and a 2019 application was withdrawn.

“Application Number: LA07/2018/0656/F Decision: Permission Refused Decision Date: January 2019 Proposal: Proposed erection of Dwelling and Garage. Change of house type from previous approval P/2006/1822/RM”

“It is important to note at this stage that planning application LA07/2018/3656/F was submitted back in May 2018 for “Proposed erection of Dwelling and Garage. Change of house type from previous approval P/2006/1822/RM” within this same application site. In assessment of this, the application was refused by the Planning Department as it had not been demonstrated that development had commenced in line with the previous approvals to keep the permissions alive.”

Officer report

Why refusal was advised

Officers considered the design acceptable but found insufficient evidence that substantial works began before the earlier permission expired, so the development principle was not established.

“The principle of development on this site will be assessed against the relevant policies in PPS 21, which includes CTY 1, CTY 13 and CTY 14. PPS 21 Policy CTY 1 states a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside.”

“Conclusion Whilst it is considered that the changes proposed to the dwelling to include its redesign and repositioning of the garage would not be detrimental to the character of the area and would be acceptable, having considered the information provided, the Planning Department is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been submitted to illustrate that substantial works began prior to the expiration of the planning permission.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Roads had no objection subject to conditions, Rivers required a five-metre watercourse working strip, and NI Water approved subject to standard conditions.

“CONSULTATIONS • DFI Roads – No objection subject to conditions. (28/08/2024)”

“DFI Rivers - A undesignated watercourse flows along the western boundary of the site. It is essential that a working strip with a minimum width of 5m from the top of the bank is provided. DfI Rivers request that the working strip is shown on a site layout plan with cross sections through the working strip included on this drawing, with levels to O.D.”

Officer report

Public representations

No representations were received after neighbour notification and advertising, and a nearby dwelling was under construction but unoccupied.

“REPRESENTATIONS Neighbour notification and advertising of this planning application was undertaken in line with the statutory requirements. There were no representations received. A new dwelling was under construction opposite the application site however at the time of inspection it was not yet completed or occupied.”

Officer report

Who attended and spoke

Members attended a site visit, no further speaking rights were allowed, and the agent was present to answer questions.

Members’ consideration

Members had no questions before a proposal to accept the officer recommendation was made and seconded.

“As there were no questions from Members, Councillor Hanna proposed to accept the officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Larkin.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee agreed to refuse the application, supporting the officer recommendation.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor Hanna, seconded by Councillor Larkin, it was agreed to issue a refusal in respect of planning application LA07/2023/3646/F supporting officer recommendation as contained in the Case Officer Report.”

Minutes