One infill dwelling at Magheratimpany Road Land immediately north west of 66 Magheratimpany Road, Ballynahinch

What was proposed

The application proposed an infill dwelling between Nos 66 and 72 Magheratimpany Road on Site A.

“The proposed development site is located to the west of the Magheratimpany Road, Ballynahinch The site is defined to the south and west by dispersed mature trees. The frontage is defined by a hedge, whilst the northern boundary is currently undefined. The surrounding area is typically comprised of dispersed detached single/two storey dwellings, farm buildings and open agricultural fields. The site is currently an agricultural field.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an agricultural field in the rural countryside outside settlement limits, surrounded by dispersed homes, farm buildings and open fields.

“The site is located within the rural countryside outside any settlement limits designated under the Ards and Down Area Plan (ADAP) 2015. The site is located approximately 0.7 miles immediately east of the Spa village.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A related application for Site B was pending, while an earlier rural dwelling application beside No. 72 had been refused.

“LA07/2024/1380/O : Proposal: Infill Dwelling between Nos 66 and 72 Magheratimpany Road - Site B Decision: Pending Decision Date…”

“R/2004/1489/O Proposal: New build domestic rural style dwelling (Single storey or dormer with garage). Location NW and adjacent No 72 Maghertimpany Road Decision: Permission Refused Decision Date: January 2006”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the 120-metre gap was not a small gap site and the proposal would create ribbon development and harm rural character.

“The assessment of whether a site is suitable for infill development is not simply a mathematical exercise. Whether or not a gap site is suitable for infill development is a matter of planning judgment, taking into account what is ascertained on the ground. As can be seen from the street view image below, the gap between No 66 and 72 is substantial.”

“At 120m, the gap between No 66 and 72 Magheratimpany Road could accommodate more than two dwellings within the range of plot sizes identified. Consequently, the application site would not qualify as a small gap site within an otherwise substantial and continuously built-up frontage. Further to this officers are mindful that in the wider context of the site, Magheratimpany Road, is not overly developed and its rural character is clearly visible.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

DfI Roads and Historic Environment Division raised no objections subject to conditions or the information provided.

“DFI Consult 27/05/2025 – No objections subject to conditions HED Consult 13/05/2025 – No objections feature sufficiently removed from the proposed development.”

Officer report

Objections raised

One neighbour objected on grounds including the area’s character, visual impact, road safety, future precedent and the local environment.

“Monica McMahon 67 Magheratimpany Road Comment:”

“Visual impact on area and objectors’ property • Road Safety • Potential to set precedent for future development along road • Proposal not in the interests of the local environment…”

Officer report

What speakers said

The supporting speaker argued that the plots matched the established frontage, the site was not prominent, boundaries could be restored and the shared access was acceptable.

What members debated

Members discussed the visual break, the objection and whether the gap was suitable for two dwellings under the countryside infill policy.

“Councillor McAteer queried the importance given to the visual break and whether it was a normal expectation, to which [name withheld] stated that it was a matter of judgement but that the Planning Department perceived it to be a break within dispersed development along the road and was read as an attractive visual break when traversing the road and the proposal would interrupt that and not maintain the rural character.”

“[name withheld] stated that the Justification and Amplification Text (J&A) stated that an infill on a visual break would be permitted if the gap was a small gap site.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The proposal to overturn the refusal recommendation received six votes in favour, one against and no abstentions.

“Councillor Hanna proposed to overturn the recommendation to an approval, noting it’s similarity to previous applications. He confirmed that he believed that the proposal was sustainable development in the countryside, did not contribute to ribbon development and that it was an infill site, noting a previous application that had been approved with a gap of 180m, while this had a gap of 120m.”

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

Minutes