Two infill dwellings at Land 25m metres west of No 60 Crawfordstown Road (formerly known as 74 Crawfordstown Road) Ballynahinch, (amended site

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for two infill dwellings on land west of an existing property.

“Date of Site Visit: 4 th March 2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site comprises an irregularly shaped plot which is accessed off an existing laneway off Crawfordstown road serving a number of other properties. To the west of the site are two detached properties (76 & 76A). To the north is a detached dwelling on the opposite side of the laneway (60A).”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a replacement dwelling, while a later application for one infill dwelling was withdrawn after being recommended for refusal.

“Application Number: LA07/2023/2426/O Decision: Application Withdrawn Decision Date: April 2024 Proposal: 1 x Infill Dwelling…”

“Application Number: LA07/2016/0037/F Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: May 2016 Proposal: Replacement Dwelling with original dwelling structure retained for store.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers concluded that there was no qualifying built-up frontage, the plots did not match surrounding development, and the proposal would harm rural character.

“As the aforementioned dwellings cannot be counted for the purposes of the policy, then it follows that it does not have common frontage to the laneway (Crawfordstown road), there is no line of three or more buildings to constitute a substantial and continuously built up frontage, as envisaged by the policy. Accordingly, there is no gap or infill opportunity.”

“Policy CTY 14 – Rural Character Policy CTY 14 of PPS 21 ‘Rural Character’ 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. It sets out five circumstances where a new building would be unacceptable.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Statutory consultees raised no objections, subject to access requirements, standing advice, private treatment and environmental safeguards.

“NI Water – Statutory response – no objections DFI Roads – No objections subject to RS1 form Environmental Health– No objections NIEA Water management Unit – refer to standing advice NIEA Natural Environment Division NED – no objections…”

Officer report

Neighbours’ objections

Two neighbours objected to the number and size of dwellings, traffic, privacy, water pressure and risks from septic tanks and effluent.

“Neighbour at No 60A • Previous application: Neighbour would be pleased to see the site being developed; the site having lain vacant since they moved to the area in 2015. However, squeezing two dwellings into the infill site seems disproportionate and excessive, having regard to current Planning Policy, the average area of adjoining sites and the outcome of previous planning applications.”

“Concerned that building another two houses, who will draw water from the same supply, will further reduce the pressure of the supply to their property. • Increase in traffic - They are greatly concerned that the building of an additional two houses, will further increase the risk for all users of the lane way. • As there is no sewage service to this area, any new dwelling will be required to install and maintain a septic tank and discharge effluent.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent was present to answer questions, and no further speaking rights were permitted.

The committee’s debate

The agent disputed where the laneway ended, while members discussed frontage and the relevance of the lane to the refusal reasons.

“[name withheld] referred Members to his earlier presentation at the previous Committee Meeting, explaining that the main issue related to the point at which the laneway terminated. He stated his view that the laneway extended to No. 76, whereas the Planning Department considered it to end before that point.”

“Councillor Larkin clarified that the lane in question continued beyond No. 76 and provided access to another property, and he queried the relevance of this detail to the refusal reasons.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to overturn the refusal recommendation and approve the application received four votes for, one against and one abstention.

“Councillor Hanna then proposed that the Committee overturn the officer’s recommendation and approve the application. He stated that, in his view, the proposal satisfied the requirements of Policy CTY8 in relation to a substantial and continuous built-up frontage, and that it also met Policy CTY14, given that the site sat within a hollow, represented sustainable rural development, and would not harm rural character or result in ribbon or suburban-style development.”

“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 because members considered the frontage and rural character requirements satisfied.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor Hanna, seconded by Councillor Quinn, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/1077/O contrary to officer recommendation as contained in the Case Officer Report.”

Minutes