Ancillary garage and games room at 92a Mill Road, Annalong, Kilkeel

What was proposed

The application proposed a garage, classic car and boat store, gym, games room and balcony at the residential property.

“Proposed Garage, Classic Car and Boat Store, Gym, and Games Room (Amended plans)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a detached two-storey house in a rural area within the AONB, with adjoining properties and off-road parking.

“The application site is located at number 92A Mill Road, a rural area situated north of the Annalong settlement area, as defined within the Banbridge, Newry and Mourne Area Plan 2015. The site is also located within the AONB.”

“The site contains a detached two storey dwelling which is situated on the western side of Mill Road. The site is set down from the road and is adjoined by properties to either side. Dwellings along this road are diverse in design, form and material, although are well proportioned. The site benefits from off road parking which could accommodate five+ parking spaces. The external façade displays render with tiles.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the outbuilding disproportionate and visually prominent, harmful to the AONB setting, and likely to cause overlooking and loss of privacy.

“Garages along Mill Road are significantly smaller in scale and are located in less prominent positions within their sites. As above due to the separation distance between the host dwelling and the garage and the topography of the site the proposed would appear disproportionate to the host dwelling and would be visually prominent when approaching from the south of Mill Road, especially due to the openness of the site.”

“The proposed outbuilding would be slightly set down from no. 102’s incomplete outbuilding. The proposal incorporates a balcony to the rear elevation which would face on to the rear of the site. Due to the proposed height of the garage, its footprint and the adjacent retaining wall the proposal would have resulted in overlooking from the host site on to the neighbour no. 102 when sitting and standing on the upper floor proposed balcony.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Seven neighbours were notified, one objection was received, and the concerns related to plan accuracy, boundary distance and retaining-wall ownership.

“Inaccurate plans • Outbuilding would be built within 2m of shared boundary and would not comply with policy. • Dispute regarding ownership of retaining wall along shared boundary…”

“A boundary dispute was raised and has been clarified with the agent who confirmed that the retaining wall is located along the shared boundary and therefore is a party wall. Regardless, ownership disputes are a civil matter which should be dealt with outside the remits of Planning and are therefore not a material planning consideration. The determination of a planning application is not certification of ownership.”

Officer report

What the supporting speaker said

The supporting speaker said the revised fence would prevent overlooking, screen an unfinished neighbouring structure and make the proposal subordinate and sympathetic.

The committee debate

Members discussed the late revised drawings, neighbour notification, fence height, overlooking, plan accuracy, the AONB and the proposal’s visual effect.

“Following a query from Councillor McAteer regarding the overlooking concern and the balcony, [name withheld] confirmed that the view from the first-floor balcony of the proposal would be overlooking the neighbour’s property. [name withheld] advised that the balcony was recessed, enclosed on either side by walls, facing the bottom of the garden, to view the neighbour’s property would be difficult. He stated that the proposed heightened fence was a belt and braces approach.”

“Councillor Hanna proposed to overturn the recommendation to an approval, stating that he believed the late-submitted plans would improve the appearance of the unsightly lane. He considered that the proposal would not conflict with PPS 7 and would instead enhance the visual quality of the area, with the amended drawing of a 1.8m fence helping to reduce any impact on residential amenity due to the well-separated houses and large gardens.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members rejected the officer recommendation and voted six to one to approve the application, delegating relevant conditions to planning officers.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor Hanna, seconded by Councillor Larkin, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2025/0327/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