Two rural dwellings at Land 50m North East of 36 Strangford Road, Ardglass

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for two infill dwellings with ancillary garages.

“Two infill dwellings with ancillary garages (PPS21 CTY 8)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an agricultural field outside Ardglass, within the countryside and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, beside existing dwellings and open fields.

“Date of Site Visit: November 2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The site comprises a cut out from a larger agricultural field on the western side of Strangford Road and is positioned just outside Ardglass village. The site is located within the rural countryside outside any settlement limits designated under the Ards and Down Area Plan (ADAP) 2015.”

“The surrounding area is typically comprised of dispersed detached bungalow type dwellings, their associated outbuildings and open agricultural fields. To the west of the site is Ardglass village. The site is currently an agricultural field.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the proposal unacceptable because it would extend ribbon development, harm rural character, rely on new landscaping and cause urban sprawl.

“Consequently, the application site would not qualify as a small gap site within an otherwise substantial and continuously built-up frontage. On further consideration of the wider context of the application site, this section of the Strangford Road is not overly developed and its rural character is clearly visible. On travelling from Ardglass towards the application site, along the Strangford Road (A2), much of the area is urbanised, until you reach No.”

“As discussed above, the proposal is not considered to be an exception to CTY 8 and development of the site would be visually linked with the adjacent buildings at No 36 and No 40 and would read as a ribbon of development from this aspect.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

Consultees raised no objections subject to requirements, and no representations, objections or letters of support were received.

“CONSULTATIONS • DFI – No objections subject to compliance with RS1. (16/01/2026) • NIEA (WMU) - refer to standing advise. (07/07/2025) • Environmental Health – no objection in principle (13/08/2025) • SES (informal) –approximately 77m from the marine environment. No conceivable effect from any construction phase or operational pathways. Ensure consent to discharge authorisation of 2 no. septic tanks occurs under the terms of the Water (NI) Order 1999 (07/07/205)”

“REPRESENTATIONS Neighbour notification and advertising was undertaken in line with statutory requirements. There were no representations received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter argued that two dwellings suited the area, could integrate with existing boundaries and would not blur the settlement-countryside distinction.

Members’ debate

Councillor D Murphy proposed approval because he considered the application similar to others and believed the refusal reasons had been addressed.

“Councillor D Murphy proposed to overturn the recommendation to an approval, stating that he felt the application was similar to others that had been dealt with at Committee and he was satisfied that the agent had satisfactorily addressed all the refusal reasons.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members voted nine to zero with no abstentions to overturn the officer recommendation and approve the application, delegating relevant conditions to officers.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor D Murphy, seconded by Councillor Rice, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2025/0111/O 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