Infill dwelling at 2 Ballycoshone Road Ballyaughian, Hilltown

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for an infill dwelling and associated works on land west of an existing property.

“Description of Proposal This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of an infill dwelling and associated site works on lands west of 2 Ballycoshone Road, Hilltown, BT34 5XB.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a dwelling, mechanics’ workshop, vehicles, temporary structures and a container in a rural area beside two roads.

“Date of Site Visit: 17th November 2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The proposed site is located on the north side of B8 Castlewellan Road approximately 2km northeast from Hilltown at the junction with Ballycoshone Road. The site can be accessed by both Castlewellan Road and Ballycoshone Road with the main access from Ballycoshone Road. The site is approximately 0.1hectares, roughly rectangular in shape and the topography drops off from Castlewellan Road.”

“The site comprises dwelling no.2 Ballycoshone Road, a mechanic workshop, a number of dilapidated vehicles, a caravan, a disused mobile unit structure with a door and window, a shipping container, and a rectangular box structure in cream cladding with a door, this unit is located to the west of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier permission

An earlier application for an extension and alteration at the existing property was granted permission in 2001.

“PLANNING HISTORY P/2001/0145/F - Extension and alteration at 2 Ballycoshone Road, Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: March 2001”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that the site was not a genuine gap, would create ribbon development and required a new access onto a protected route.

“Impact on highway safety The existing access seems to have appeared informally between street views images of 2008-2011. This is a new access onto a Protected route B8 Castlewellan Road, it does not have the benefit of planning permission and is not lawful.”

“Policy AMP3 sets out that planning permission will only be granted for new access onto a protected route in specific circumstances, those being A) a replacement dwelling - the proposal does not meet this criteria B) a farm dwelling – the proposal does not meet this criteria C) a dwelling serving an established commercial or industrial enterprise D) other categories of development that meet the criteria for development in the countryside and access cannot reasonably be…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Roads raised no objection subject to the policy position, water bodies supported approval with conditions, and environmental health raised noise concerns.

“CONSULTATIONS DFI Roads – state they have no objection if Planning contends that the proposal is an exception to policy regarding protected routes. Planning can confirm that this is not considered to be an exception in line with policy AMP3 Access Movement and Parking - Access to Protected Routes NI Water – Standing Advice – Approve with standard planning conditions NIEA – Water Management Unit- No objection to proposal – suggested conditions put forward should planning…”

Officer report

What the speakers said

The agent argued that the structure was permanent, formed part of a qualifying gap site and used an established lawful access.

Members’ discussion

Planning officers maintained that the structure was temporary, while members considered the structure’s permanence and the access history.

“[name withheld] further advised that Members were required to consider the purpose of the policy, which was restrictive and dealt with exceptions. He stated that the policy did not define a building but was intended to apply to permanent structures. He stated that the structure on site was of temporary shed-type construction, capable of deterioration, and that its longevity was not determinative.”

“In response to Councillor McAteer, [name withheld] advised that applications of this nature required careful judgement. She reminded Members that they were the decision-makers and that each application must be determined on its own merits, although previous decisions could be referenced. She stated that it was for Members to decide what weight to give to the structures on site.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted six in favour, none against and none abstaining on the proposal to overturn the refusal recommendation.

“Councillor Rice proposed to overturn the officer’s recommendation to an approval, stating that he believed the proposal complied with CTY8, CTY1 and CTY14, and that the building demonstrated a higher degree of permanence than suggested by officers. He noted that DfI Roads had no objections, accepted that the access had been formed in 2008, and did not accept that the proposal created a new access or conflicted with AMP3.”

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

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee agreed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation.

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor Rice, seconded by Councillor D Murphy, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/0808/O, contrary to officer recommendation as contained in the Case Officer Report.”

Minutes