Replacement dwelling and garage at Adjacent to and south of 12 Belmont Crescent Forkhill Road Mullaghbawn

What was proposed

The application proposed an off-site replacement dwelling and detached garage, while retaining the existing building for ancillary storage.

“Description of Proposal Proposed off-site replacement dwelling and detached garage to include the retention and preservation of the existing building to be used for ancillary storage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies outside Mullaghbawn’s settlement limit, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and includes agricultural land and a derelict building.

“Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site is located just outside the settlement limit of Mullaghbawn as defined within the Banbridge / Newry and Mourne Area Plan 2015; the site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

“The application site extends from the public road and includes a large area of agricultural land which rises to the west, the site also includes a further area extending to the south where an old derelict building is located.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the application site.

“PLANNING HISTORY No relevant planning history on application site.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

Consultees raised no objections, and no representations were received after advertising and neighbour notification.

“CONSULTATIONS DFI Roads – The latest response states there are no objections subject to conditions.”

“REPRESENTATIONS The application was advertised on 07/02/2024 and again on 06/08/2025, seven (7) neighbours were notified on 24/03/2024 and 23/07/2025, no representations have been received.”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent supported approval, arguing that the site avoided backland development, used the only available access, retained a building of cultural value and complied with policy.

The committee debate

Members heard that alternative access and siting could have been explored, but supporters considered the proposal a replacement opportunity that would not create ribbon development.

“In response to questions from Members, [name withheld] confirmed that the proposed access had been the only available means of entry to the site and advised that alternative siting adjacent to the existing building had not been pursued due to the absence of access, insufficient site area and concerns regarding backland development.”

“Councillor McAteer noted that the officer’s report had identified scope for development adjacent to the existing dwelling and sought clarification regarding access. [name withheld] advised that access had been available, potentially via adjoining lands, and that alternative access arrangements could have been achieved, including along existing boundary lines.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application contrary to the officer recommendation and authorised planning officers to impose relevant conditions.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor Larkin, seconded by Councillor Hanna it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/0050/F contrary to officer recommendation as contained in the Case Officer Report.”

“It was also agreed that Planning Officers be delegated authority to impose any relevant conditions.”

Minutes