One rural dwelling at 20m NE of 65 Kilmegan Road, Castlewellan

The site and surroundings

The small site was accessed by a private lane serving two dwellings and lay in a rural area among detached homes.

“The site is located off the minor Kilmegan Road Castlewellan and is accessed via a private lane which currently serves two dwellings (Nos 63 & 63a). The site is comprised of a small 0.1 hectare portion of ground which is enclosed to the east and north by a close board timber fence, while to the west the boundary of No 65 provides the definition of the site to this side.”

“The site is located within the rural area as designated in the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015. The site is located outside the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Several earlier dwelling and access applications received permission, while one farm dwelling application was withdrawn.

“R/2011/0379/O Proposal: Replacement dwelling with retention of existing building as store Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: December 2011”

“LA07/2018/1948/O Proposal: Farm dwelling and garage Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: April 2019”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the site was not at a focal point or crossroads and lacked a qualifying built-up frontage.

“While the proposed dwelling may exist within a cluster of development and be designed to ‘fit’ into the site and not appear prominent in the landscape, it is not located at a cross roads or focal point as required by Policy CTY 2a. In addition, the site is not positioned within a substantial and continuously built up frontage as required by Policy CTY 8. There is therefore no policy basis in principle for a dwelling at this location and it must be refused for this reason.”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

The proposal was considered to create ribbon development, fail to respect the settlement pattern and lack a policy basis for a dwelling there.

“A new building will be unacceptable where: a) It is unduly prominent in the landscape; or b) It results in a suburban style build- up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings; or c) It does not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in that area; or d) It creates or adds to a ribbon of development e) The impact of ancillary works (with the exception of necessary visibility splays) would damage rural character.”

“As discussed above the proposal is not considered to be an exception to CTY 8 and would therefore result in creation of ribbon development. Further to this officers consider, for the reasons set out above, that the proposal does not respect the pattern of settlement exhibited in the area.”

Officer report

What the supporter said

The supporter argued that the site formed an established cluster, met the relevant criteria and would not cause landscape, amenity or countryside harm.

Members’ view

A councillor proposed overturning the recommendation because he believed the application complied with Policy CTY 2A.

“Councillor Larkin requested the indulgence of the Committee and proposed that the recommendation be overturned to an approval as he believed that the application complied with CTY2a. This was seconded by Councillor McAteer.”

Minutes

The committee’s 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 Larkin, seconded by Councillor McAteer, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/1513/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