New dwelling and garage at Lands Immediately South of No. 24 Lower Carrogs Road, Newry

The site

The agricultural corner site was outside settlement limits and the Mourne Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, with laneways to its east and south.

“Date of Site Visit: 14/05/2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site comprises an agricultural parcel of land comprising a corner site. The site is adjoined to the north by No 24 and to the west by No 20. The site is adjoined to the east and south by laneways. The gradient on the site falls from the east towards the west and No 20.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier outline permission for a dwelling and garage was approved after the refusal recommendation was overturned, but it expired without reserved matters.

“LA07/2016/1486O- Proposed corner infill site for a new dwelling and garage on lands immediately south of No 24 Lower Carrogs Road, Newry.”

“The application appeared before Planning Committee and the recommendation was overturned. Outline planning permission was approved on 28 th March 2017 subject to 12 conditions. No application for reserved matters was submitted and the outline approval expired 28 th March 2022.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that two frontages could not form the required substantial, continuously built-up frontage and that the proposal would create ribbon development.

“On 9 th July 2025 the Planning Department advised that it is considered that the proposal relies on two frontages and the application site does not constitute a gap site, as it is not part of a singular frontage which is substantial and continuously built up. As this application fails to meet the policy requirements of Policy CTY 8, it also fails to comply with Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21.”

“The application site is also not part of a substantial and continuously built up frontage. Policy CTY 8 defines a substantial and built up frontage as one containing a minimum of three buildings along a road frontage with no development to the rear. Even if the two frontages were to be accepted as one, there is not a substantial and built up frontage.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Roads raised no objection in principle, Northern Ireland Water approved, and no objections or other submissions were received.

“August 2025 Date of Press Advertisement: December 2024 EIA Determination: Consultations: • DFI Roads- No objections in principle, conditions provided.”

“Summary of Issues: No objections or submissions have been received. No objections from consultees have been received.”

Officer report

What people said

The agent and applicant said the lane was one continuous frontage, the design met policy, and the earlier approval supported consistency.

Members discussed the history

Officers said the expired permission carried no determining weight, while members considered the current proposal similar to the previously approved scheme.

“Councillor Clarke stated that the application appeared similar to the previous proposal and noted that an appeal would require evidence of a change in circumstances and asked officers to comment.”

“[name withheld] confirmed that during processing, various appeal decisions had been referenced, including one where a key paragraph had been omitted, that being that the Commissioner had concluded that because the previous permission had expired and had not been implemented, it did not carry determining weight, and the principle could be revisited. He advised that it was still the opinion of the Planning Department that the proposal failed CTY8 and remained contrary to policy.”

Minutes

The committee voted

Members voted six in favour, none against and no abstentions to overturn the refusal recommendation.

“Councillor McAteer proposed to overturn the recommendation to an approval, citing the same reasons used in 2017. He stated that the previous site visit had confirmed that the building to the north had frontage onto the lane and that another building and garage formed part of a further frontage, leading Members to conclude that the plot constituted an infill site compliant with CTY8.”

“This was seconded by Councillor D Murphy.”

Minutes

The application was approved

The committee approved the application contrary to the officer recommendation, considering the plot an infill site compliant with CTY8.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor McAteer, seconded by Councillor D Murphy, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/1471/F, contrary to officer recommendation as contained in the Case Officer Report.”

Minutes