Stable building at Lands adjoining and 50m south of 74 Carsonstown Road, Saintfield

What was proposed

The application proposed a stable building, a new access and associated site works.

“Description of Proposal Proposed stable building, access and associated site works…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is part of a larger field south of the applicant’s home, outside Saintfield’s settlement limit, with vegetation along parts of its boundaries.

“Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site is a portion cut out of a larger field, located to the south of no. Carsonstown Road, which is the applicant’s home. Its eastern and southern boundaries are undefined. Mature vegetation defines the northern boundary and a mature hedge defines the western boundary. The land is relatively flat.”

“Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations The site is located within the countryside, outside the settlement limits of Saintfield village, as identified in the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015.”

Officer report

The officer’s recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would create ribbon development, lack established boundaries and harm the countryside’s rural character.

“Planning Policy Statement 21 Policy CTY 8 – Ribbon Development Planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. Ribbon development is detrimental to the character, appearance and amenity of the countryside. Policy clarifies that ‘Buildings sited back, staggered or at angles and with gaps between them can still represent ribbon development, if they have a common frontage or they are visually linked’.”

“Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character 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. In this case the proposal would create ribbon development and erode the rural character of the area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

DfI Roads raised no objections subject to access conditions, while DfI Rivers said a drainage assessment was unnecessary.

“Following receipt of amended plans DfI Roads are content subject to conditions below: • The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 0535-05 published date 14 January 2025, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted.”

“DfI Rivers were consulted due to the proximity to fluvial floodplain. In their consultation response they confirm the site does not lie within the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain not a 1 in 100 year climate change fluvial flood plain. Drainage Assessment will not be required.”

Officer report

What was said in support

The supporter said the modest, revised stables would use existing vegetation and level differences and would not form ribbon development.

Members’ debate

Members discussed alternative locations, floodplain constraints, the soakaway, family play space, landscape integration and the separation from the existing home.

“Councillor Devlin asked [name withheld] for his opinion on these alternatives, to which he confirmed that they had been considered but rejected as the rear land was used for the septic tank soakaway, and the garden space was needed for the applicant’s young family to have a safe play area. He added that a 50m gap between the proposed stables and No. 74 negated the ribbon development concern.”

“Councillor Larkin queried why the stables were not sited behind the existing garden, as referenced in the case officer’s report, to which [name withheld] explained that this land was constrained by floodplain restrictions and was also used for the septic tank soakaway, as confirmed by Land & Property Services maps.”

Minutes

The vote

The proposal to overturn the refusal recommendation was supported by nine members, opposed by one, with no abstentions.

“Councillor Hanna proposed to overturn the recommendation to an approval, stating that stables could only realistically be sited in the countryside and noted that the agent had confirmed the proposal was a small-scale build.”

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

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application contrary to the officer recommendation, considering the location and separation sufficient to address the policy concerns.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor Hanna, seconded by Councillor Devlin, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/0783/F contrary to officer recommendation as contained in the Case Officer Report.”

Minutes