Two glamping pods at 150 metres east of 32 Convent Road, Cabra, Newry

The site and surroundings

The site is a small, flat grassed plot beside Convent Road, outside settlement limits and constrained by surface water flooding.

“The site in question is located off the Convent Road and is a portion of ground that appears maintained that sits adjacent to the access lane serving no 32 Convent Road. The site is bounded by a hedge in part along the road, the southern boundary of the site has some planting along with a post and wire fence and the remainder of boundaries have post and wire fencing only.”

“The site in question is not located within any settlement development limits as defined in the Banbridge, Newry and Mourne Area Plan 2015. The site is constrained by surface water flooding. No other constraints are noted on the site and the site is not within an AoNBs. Description of Proposal…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous application for three glamping pods on the site was refused because of rural location, landscape, suburban build-up and ribbon-development concerns.

“The proposal is contrary to the SPPS, Policy CTY 1 of Planning Policy Statement 21 and Policy TSM 6 (a), (b) and (d) of Planning Policy Statement 16 in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement. The formalised proposal is not based on an overall design concept that respects the surrounding landscape, rural character and site context.”

“The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 8 & CTY14 (b) and (d) of Planning Policy Statement 21 in that it would if permitted contribute to a suburban style build up and creation of ribbon development along Convent Road.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal unacceptable in principle, unsupported by tourism policy, poorly integrated, visually harmful and unable to provide a high-quality tourist facility.

“Standalone small scale proposals providing two units of accommodation in an area such as this one would be considered to be of little or no economic tourism benefit and as such would not be considered to be a sustainable form of tourism development. The policy is intended for “holiday parks” which is suggestive of more than one or two tourist units.”

“The portion of land the proposed units sit on is a portion of disused land resulting from the need to take an access to a central point to achieve sight splays, there are many examples of this type of portion of lands across the countryside, the availability of land at these locations is limited given access lanes and roads surrounding and the quality of the site in terms of tourist potential is unacceptable given the road side positions and also taking account the nature of…”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

DFI Roads and Environmental Health raised no objections subject to conditions, DFI Rivers gave comments, and no representations were received.

“DFI Roads were consulted and responded with no objections subject to conditions.”

“Representations: Advertisement and neighbour notification has been carried out as detailed above and to date no representations have been received in relation to the proposal. Letters of Support 0”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning official recommended refusal, while the supporting agent argued that reduced scale, planting, policy compliance and family circumstances supported approval.

What members discussed

Members discussed comparable sites, tourism policies, additional planting, family circumstances and whether a decommissioning condition could be imposed.

“Councillor Devlin queried whether feedback had been provided to the agent regarding the refusal of 3 pods, to which [name withheld] advised that it had been submitted by a different agent however the applicant had added additional planting and was content for a condition regarding additional planting as needed.”

“Councillor McAteer proposed to overturn the recommendation to an approval, stating that the applicant had reduced the scale of the proposal and planted additional planting which showed a willingness to engage with the Planning Department, taking consideration of the family circumstances and he believed that there was sufficient integration to satisfy the relevant policies.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application contrary to the officer recommendation and delegated authority to officers to impose relevant conditions.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor McAteer, seconded by Councillor S Murphy, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/1452/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