Download Report

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report
COMMITTEE DATE: 15th April 2015
APPLICATION No: A/2014/0298/O
APPLICATION TYPE: Single Dwelling
PROPOSAL: Erection of 1 1/2 storey replacement dwelling in accordance with Policy CTY3 of PPS21
(ridge height 7.5m). Amended proposal.
LOCATION: Lands adjacent to No 31 Gortnessy Road, Drumahoe, L'Derry
APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Savage
AGENT: MKA Planning Ltd
ADVERTISEMENT/STATUTORY EXPIRY: 18.06.2014/09.07.2014
RE-ADVERTISEMENT/STATUTORY EXPIRY: 25.02.2015/18.03.2015
REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: Change of opinion from case as presented to Derry
City Council
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
Details of the planning application, including the plans, can be accessed at the Planning Portal
weblink.
1. Description of Proposed Development
Erection of 1 1/2 storey replacement dwelling in accordance with Policy CTY3 of PPS21 (ridge
height 7.5m). Amended proposal.
2. Site and Surrounding Area (Site visit date, Description of Site and surrounding area)
The proposed site is a small roadside plot of land located to the west (approx 40) of 31
Gortnessy Road. The site is located in the northern corner of a large agricultural field and is set
on the southern side of Gortnessy Road.
Set in the countryside. Located to the east of the site is a large farm complex. Located
immediately to the east are a silage pit and a large shed. Further to the east is a large two storey
dwelling (presently vacant and in a poor state) and a number of outbuildings. The farm grouping
is also set back from Gortnessy Road approx 18m-20m.
3. Site Constraints (Flood Plain, ASSI etc)
No specific site constraints
4. Neighbour Notification Report (Can print from MIS reports and attach)
Neighbour Address
26 Gortnessy Road
Gortnessy
Drumahoe
Londonderry
BT47 3NL
28 Gortnessy Road
Gortnessy
Drumahoe
Londonderry
BT47 3NL
30 Gortnessy
Road,Gortnessy,Drumahoe,Londonderry,BT47 3NL,
Presbyterian Church Hall,Gortnessy
Road,Gortnessy,Drumahoe,Londonderry,BT47 3NL,
Date Neighbour
Notified
6/20/14
6/20/14
6/20/14
6/20/14
5. Relevant Site History
-A/2014/0005/F 31 Gortnessy Road, Drumahoe, Erection of off-site replacement dwelling
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN 03.06.2014
- A/2010/0169/F 30 Gortnessy Road, Drumahoe, Londonderry, Proposed single storey
replacement dwelling GRANTED APPROVAL 15.04.2010
6. Policy Framework
Derry Area Plan 2011
PPS1 General Principles
PPS 3 Access, Movement and Parking
PPS21 Sustainable development in the Countryside
7. Consultee Responses, Internal/External
DARD- The application was accompanied by a P1C form as the application was originally
submitted for a dwelling on a farm. DARD were asked the following questions in the
consultation;
Has the farm Business Id identified on Form P1C been in existence for more than 6 years?
Has the business claimed Single Farm Payment (SFP), Less Favoured Area Compensatory
Allowances (LFACA) or Agri Environment schemes in the last 6 years?
DARD answered ‘Yes’ to both questions
Transport NI- The Department for Regional Development has no objections to approval being
granted to this application subject to the following condition and informative:
Condition
1.
A scale plan and accurate site survey at 1:500 shall be submitted as part of the
Reserved Matters application showing the access to be constructed and other requirements
in accordance with the attached RS1 form.
REASON: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and
the convenience of road users.
Informative
1.
The applicant’s attention is drawn to Form RS1 and the statement regarding an
accurate, maximum 1:500 scale survey which must be submitted as part of the
Reserved Matters application.
Northern Ireland Water- No objections subject to a number of informatives to be attached to any
approval.
8. Representations Consideration
One letter of objection was received on the 5th August 2014 in respect of the application
when it was initially advertised as an application for a farm dwelling. The letter was from Mr
Paul McGarvey, Architect based at 13a Ebrington Terrace. Within his letter he raised 5 issues
of concerns;
•
Proposal fails to integrate and will be a prominent feature in the landscape. It only
has 2 established boundaries and will be contrary to policy CTY 13 of PPS21.
•
The site is not located within the established curtilage of the existing buildings
•
The farm holding represents a much better opportunity for a site to the north of
Gortnessy Road and immediately to the east of no 31 as existing buildings and
mature vegetations to the south provide a good screening, helping to camouflage the
dwelling at this location. Furthermore it was the objector’s opinion that this location
will not impede any further expansion of the farm buildings.
•
Objector believes that an off-site replacement would be a better option
•
There is an extant approval for a dwelling to the east of the far buildings within the
holding.
Mr McGarvey was re-notified on the 24th February 2015 in relation to the proposed
amended scheme for an off-site replacement dwelling. No further representations
were received in respect of the amended scheme, nevertheless several of his
objections still require consideration given the siting of the proposal has not changed.
Much of Mr McGarvey’s objections centre on the siting of the proposal and he raises
issues with lack of integration, out of curtilage siting, prominence and lack of
vegetation. Now that the proposal is for an off-site replacement I must consider the
policy context as set out by CTY3. CTY3 states that replacements should be located
within the curtilage of the existing building unless either of the following can be
demonstrated;
•
The curtilage is so restricted that it could not reasonably accommodate a
modest sized dwelling, or
•
It can be shown that an alternative position nearby would result in
demonstrable landscape, heritage, access or amenity benefits.
Having visited the site and taken into account the case put forward by the applicant I would
be of the view that the current dwelling is in the middle of a busy farmyard. It would appear
that the farm yard has become the principle use of the site over a long period of time and
the residential aspect of the dwelling has been left behind. As a result intensive farm
activities are happening in very close proximity to the location of the existing dwelling and I
would conclude that it is not a suitable location for a replacement dwelling. Therefore I
would say that the existing site is restricted and further to that the proposed site represents
a clear benefit in terms of the amenity of residents. Whilst I would sympathise with some of
the concerns of the objector in terms of the open nature of the site, I would say that on
balance that it would be suitable as an off-site location as it is visually linked to the farmyard
and better integration could be achieved by mitigating measures such as landscaping and
siting.
Mr McGarvey also mentions alternative locations, which he believes present a better
location for the proposal. He identifies a site to the north of the site and to the east of no 31.
The applicant explained that this site would be unsuitable given that it has been infilled over.
Whilst I do believe that this should be an impediment to development I do not see an
inherent overriding benefit in terms of visual amenity if the dwelling was sited here.
Mr McGarvey also advises that there is extant approval to the east of the farm buildings
within the holding. I ran a history search and can find no evidence of an extant approval at
this location or anywhere else within the vicinity.
Overall I do not believe that the objections put forward can be sustained now that the
proposal has been amended.
9. Planning Assessment and Other Material Considerations
The initial proposal was for a single dwelling to be considered under policy CTY 10 of PPS 21.
The applicant has provided evidence with regards to farm holding under their DARD business
number. This number was previously used within the farm holding located in Articlave. During
their ownership an application for a dwelling was approved under C/2010/0532/O under the
same DARD business number as this application. This farm holding including the site was
subsequently sold. The applicant/agent have highlighted that as application C/2010/0532/O was
not conditioned to the Farm ID number then they are able to apply for a new dwelling on a
different farm holding.
Under policy CTY10 criteria (b) no dwellings or development opportunities out with settlement
limits have been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years from the date of the application.
In my opinion although the farm holdings has moved, the applicant is utilising the same
DARD/farm business No as previously used under C/2010/0532/O which was duly sold off with
the entire holding. The ID number and business is the same and therefore I am of the opinion
that the proposal fails to adhere to this criterion. The applicant/agent has highlighted ambiguity
in relation to this matter which I would contest. The DARD Business number is the same thus the
farm business is the same wherever it is located. Further to this it is not normal practice for DOE
Planning to condition any permission to a specific DARD farm Business number therefore this
does not dilute the link of the previous permission and the DARD Business Number.
On the 18th August 2014 the Department recommended refusal of the proposed farm dwelling on
the grounds that the applicant had already availed of his opportunity under CTY 1 & 10 to have a
farm dwelling. Further to this a number of site specific refusal reasons were cited for refusal
including that a dwelling would not integrate at this location, that it would result in ribbon
development and that it would be detrimental to the rural character of the area. The
recommendation for refusal was presented the planning committee of the Derry City Council on
the 2nd September 2014. DCC decided to defer the application for an office meeting and reconsideration.
At the deferred office meeting the agent outlined the history of the farm holding in Coleraine. His
clients has relocated to Gortnessy from Articlave to be close to their daughter. He also explained
that the applicant is currently living in a mobile home at the site. The client has a pedigree herd
and he has plans to expand his already substantial farm yard. There is a 2 storey dwelling located
in the middle of the working farmyard, which is in a poor state of repair and was abandoned in
1959. The agent put forward examples of precedents and planning appeals which he believed
overcome the policy concerns put forward by the Department.
The senior planner, Sharon Mulhern, re-visited the site on the 30th September 2014. She met the
applicant on site and a number of site constraints were identified. These included the following;
•
The existing 2 storey dwelling was within the heart of the farm yard and it was in close
proximity to silo run off, the shed were bulls were housed and other farm dwellings.
•
The lands to the east and south east were unsuitable for development as they essentially
infill.
•
New farm shed in under construction (under PD).
•
Applicant believed that off site development was only option available due to the above
constraints.
The Department reconsidered the principle of the proposal under CTY 10 and concluded that
the original position of refusal remained.
In February 2015 the agent indicated that his client would be willing to propose an off-site
replacement and that he wished the Department to re-consider this before a formal
submission. He was advised that a 1 ½ storey replacement dwelling would be acceptable. The
application was revised to reflect this and re neighbour notified and re advertised. The revised
proposal was for outline approval for a 7.5m ridge off site replacement.
The principle of the replacement dwelling was considered under policy CTY 3 of the PPS 21.
Planning permission will be granted for a replacement dwelling where the building to be
replaced exhibits the essential characteristics of a dwelling and as a minimum all external
structural walls are substantially intact. For the purposes of this policy all references to
‘dwellings’ will include buildings previously used as dwellings.
In addition to the above, proposals for a replacement dwelling will only be permitted where
all the following criteria are met:
the proposed replacement dwelling should be sited within the established curtilage of the
existing building, unless either (a) the curtilage is so restricted that it could not reasonably
accommodate a modest sized dwelling, or (b) it can be shown that an alternative position
nearby would result in demonstrable landscape, heritage, access or amenity benefits;
The overall size of the new dwelling should allow it to integrate into the surrounding
landscape and would not have a visual impact significantly greater than the existing
building;
The design of the replacement dwelling should be of a high quality appropriate to its rural
setting and have regard to local distinctiveness;
All necessary services are available or can be provided without significant adverse impact
on the environment or character of the locality; and
Access to the public road will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the
flow of traffic.
The current dwelling to be replaced is 2 storey and is in a poor state of repair, however it
exhibits all the essential characteristics of a dwelling and therefore meets replacement
policy.
For the purposes of this policy ‘curtilage’ will mean the immediate, usually defined and
enclosed area surrounding an existing or former dwelling. Whilst it would appear that the
proposed replacement dwelling will fall outside the defined curtilage of the existing
farmyard, I given significant weight to the site constraints identified including the working
nature of the farm yard, the proximity of the in situ location to farm buildings, which will
house bulls and the position of the silo run off to the current dwelling. Given the cramped
and busy nature of the farmyard I think that on balance an off-site replacement would be the
preferred option.
Having viewed the site I would be of the opinion of that the site is quite open in terms of
having no established boundaries on the southern and western sides of the site. Whilst the
site would have a greater visual impact than the current dwelling, I would not consider it to
be significant. I believe that the rising land to the north of the site provides a backdrop to the
site and therefore this will provide a degree of integration. Given the open nature of the site I
would find appropriate to have a siting condition so that the dwelling is located in the
northern section of the site so as to minimise prominence of proposed dwelling.
Further to the siting I would recommend that a significant landscape scheme be submitted at
reserved matters stage.
10. Conclusion and Recommendation
Having considered all material considerations before including the development plan, planning
policies, consultations, site history, representations from third parties and the applicant, I would
recommend that the Planning Committee give consideration to my professional report and my
recommendation to grant planning outline planning permission for this off site replacement.
11. Conditions/Reasons for Refusal
1)As required by Article 35 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, application for
approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department within 3 years of the date
on which this permission is granted and the development, hereby permitted, shall be begun
by whichever is the later of the following dates:-
i. the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission; or
ii. the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
Reason: Time Limit
2)The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing buildings, coloured
………on the approved plan 01 Revision 2 date stamped 12th January 2015 is demolished, all
rubble and foundations removed.
Reason: To preserve the amenity of the area and to prevent accumulation of dwellings on the
site.
3) The proposed dwelling shall be sited in the area shaded green on the approved plan 01
Revision 2 date stamped 15th January 2015. The area in green shall be the defined curtilage of
the site.
Reason: To ensure that the development is not prominent in the landscape in accordance
with the requirements of the Department's Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable
Development in the Countryside
4) A scale plan and accurate site survey at 1:500 shall be submitted as part of the Reserved
Matters application showing the access to be constructed and other requirements in
accordance with the attached RS1 form.
REASON: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and
the convenience of road users.
5) No development shall take place on the site until a landscaping scheme has been
submitted to and approved by the Department showing
- Details of all proposed soft and hard landscaping;
- details of all existing and proposed site boundary treatments, including details of new
boundaries for western and southern boundaries of the site along the area as shaded in
green on the approved plan 01 Revision 2 date stamped 15th January 2015
- All existing vegetation to be permanently retained
The scheme of planting as finally approved shall be carried out during the first planting
season after the commencement of development. Trees or shrubs dying, removed or
becoming seriously damaged within five years of being planted shall be replace in the next
planting season with others of a similar size and species unless the department gives written
consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of
landscape in the interests of visual amenity.
Dwelling to be replaced
View of the site from the west
View of the site from the east