Farm shed at 90m NW of No. 30 Killowen Old Road, Killowen

What was proposed

The application proposed a farm shed, with amended plans reducing its footprint and removing a proposed bathroom.

“The conversation with the applicant is at odds with the invoices and information supplied with the application. It is noted that within the information provided there are copies of Summary of Single Application for 2017-2022 relating to a different farm ID, farm owner and address than the farm business details submitted with the application.”

“In response on 11 th April 2025 the Agent provided correspondence from the applicant providing information regarding the agricultural business and farming activity and details of where farm equipment is currently stored. Amended plans were also provided removing a proposed bathroom and reducing the size and scale. The information submitted will be considered below.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies behind a dwelling, uses the entrance and laneway from another property, and is outside settlement limits within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

“Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site relates to a parcel of land located to the rear of No 28 Killowen Old Road. The site is accessed via the existing entrance to the dwelling at No 30, there is a recently constructed laneway leading from No 30 around the dwelling to lands to the rear. At the time of the site visit there were large mounds of stone and soil at the site along with a car, tractor and trailer.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

An alleged unauthorised landscaping and curtilage case was closed, while an earlier domestic storage shed proposal was refused for countryside, landscape, scale and residential amenity reasons.

“Planning History- Relevant planning history is outlined below. • LA07/2021/0444/CA- Alleged unauthorised landscaping/ extension of curtilage at 30 Killowen Old Road. Case closed 30/08/2023.”

“LA07/2021/1186/F- Proposed domestic storage and sheds including extension of existing curtilage and associated site works at 30 Killowen Old Road, Rostrevor, Newry, BT34 4AD. Permission refused 22 nd March 2022. Reasons for refusal: 1.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers concluded that the farm business was not active and established for six years and that the shed was not shown to be essential or properly located under Policy CTY12.

“Assessing the proposal against this criterion: a) Para 5.56 states that for the purposes of this policy the determining criteria for an active and established business will be that set out under Policy CTY 10. DAERA have confirmed that the farm ID was allocated on 07/06/2022. The farm business does not claim payments through any scheme. The farm business identified on the P1C is a category 3 status that is not entitled to claim area based payments.”

“On the basis of the information provided, the subject lands were leased in conacre with another farm business farming the lands and claiming single farm payment on the land. This is supported by DAERA’s confirmation that the farm business was established in 2022 and the application site was not claimed by any business from 2022-2024.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

consultees raised no objections in principle or were content subject to conditions, while environmental services found no conceivable effects on European or Ramsar sites.

“Shared Environmental Services- Having considered the nature, scale, timing, duration and location of the project it is concluded that it is eliminated from further assessment because it could not have any conceivable effect on a European site. There are no viable hydrological links or other pathways for effect on any European/Ramsar sites during construction. Foul water discharge will require…”

“Consent to Discharge authorisation by NIEA WMU under the Water (NI) Order 1999. Due to the nature/scale of the proposal there can be no conceivable effects on any European/Ramsar sites…”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Two objections raised concerns about the proposal’s similarity to the earlier refusal, its location, size, residential impact, agricultural justification and landscape effects.

“The Applicant’s farm was established only three short months after the previous planning rejection. This new proposal for a “farm shed” bears striking resemblance to the “domestic storage shed” in terms of location, scale, size and character.”

“The proposal’s inappropriate location and its overbearing size results in a serious loss of our residential amenity at 28 Killowen Old Road. The length and ridge height of the Applicant’s proposal, such a building will be unacceptably over dominant and obtrusive to our dwelling and the surrounding landscape, as was the previously refused proposal made under a different purpose/policy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and the applicant spoke in support, arguing that the farm had been active since 2018 and that the shed was necessary for safe, efficient operation and future expansion.

What members discussed

Members discussed the six-year farm requirement, the farm’s size and commitment, the late objection, the location and whether policy allowed the shed.

“Councillor Devlin queried if there were circumstances that would allow a shed to be built on the holding, to which [name withheld] confirmed that the farm ID had been allocated in 2022, and as per policy the requirement was 6 years.”

“Following a query from Councillor McAteer regarding the element of policy relating to agricultural development of the land, [name withheld] stated that he was ineligible to apply for a farm ID prior to 2022 as the farm did not have the required boundary fencing or isolation facilities for animals, although he had invested heavily in the land clearing gorse, repairing stone walls and erecting wire and post fencing.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted seven in favour, three against and none abstaining on the proposal to accept the officer recommendation.

“Councillor Larkin proposed to accept the officer’s recommendations, noting that it was unfortunate that policy required the active and established farm for six years. This was seconded by Councillor Hanna.”

“The proposal was put to a vote by way of a show of hands and voting was as follows:”

Minutes