Dwelling and garage at 50 S of No.32 Tullyah Road, Belleek

The site and surroundings

The site was part of an agricultural field outside settlement limits, surrounded by rural housing, farmland and the Tullyah Road.

“Date of Site Visit: 13/08/2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The proposed site consists of a large agricultural field along the Tullyah Road, the proposal restricts the curtilage of the site to the Northern portion of the agricultural field. It is located within the ward of Camlough, outside any settlement limits as defined within the Banbridge / Newry and Mourne Area Plan 2015. The surrounding area contains a mixture of rural housingand agricultural fields.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for a bungalow on the land was refused in 1973.

“Planning History Application –P/1973/0223 Proposal –Proposed use of land for erection of bungalow Decision –Permission refused Date –17/12/1973 Consideration and Assessment: Banbridge/ Newry & Mourne Area Plan 2015 Section 45(1) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires all planning applications to take the Local Development Plan into regard, so far as material to the application, and to any other material consideration.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was not a small gap, would add to ribbon development and would harm the rural character.

“Impact on the Character of the Surrounding Area The application site has a slopingtopographywhich will cause any development on the site to be situated at a higher ground level than Tullyah Road. The mature vegetation and the sloping typography would aid in integration and therefore policy CTY 13 would be met.”

“The drawings assessed and considered as part of this application are as follows:13005/1 &13005/1 Rev A Neighbour Notification Checked-Yes Summary of Recommendation: Refusal Reasons: For the reasons stated above, the principle of development for an infill opportunity on the application site has not been established and therefore it is recommended to refuse outline planning permission. 1.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter argued that the measurements and visual assessment did not properly reflect the site and road gradient.

What members debated

Members discussed whether one dwelling could qualify under CTY 8 and whether an unauthorised log cabin affected the gap measurement.

“Councillor Hanna sought clarification on CTY8, noting that it typically allowed no more than two infill dwellings, and asked whether this single-dwelling application should be treated as “half” of a CTY8 proposal.”

“Following Councillor McAteer’s query about the log cabin, a discussion ensued, the outcome of which was [name withheld] stated that the log cabin, though not visible on the Google images shared, was in place, while [name withheld] confirmed that there was no planning permission for the log cabin and that it had only been in situ for three years, meaning it was not immune from enforcement action.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted by show of hands, with ten supporting, none against and no abstentions.

“Councillor D Murphy proposed a site visit for the application, which was seconded by Councillor Hanna.”

“The proposal was put to a vote by way of a show of hands and voting was as follows:”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee agreed to defer the application to allow a site visit.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor D Murphy, seconded by Councillor Hanna, it was agreed to defer planning application LA07/2025/0482/O to allow for a site visit.”

Minutes