LA11/2019/0559/O – Dwelling and garage on the farm – 140m South West of 1 Kittybane Road, Newbuildings, Derry.
The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) presented the above application, details of which had been previously circulated to Members. She provided an overview of the background to the application and, based on material consideration in line with relevant planning policy, recommended to refuse planning permission for reasons as outlined within the report.
Members received speaking rights from Mr Chris Cassidy, Agent who outlined reasons to approve the application, following which they sought points of clarification in relation to the proposed application.
The Chair invited Members to seek points of clarification from the PPO if they so wished.
The PPO clarified for Councillor McKinney that the evidence received consisted of a number of receipts for work carried out on the farm business, however there was insufficient evidence provided to prove other work carried out on the farm and therefore the necessary test had not been met on this occasion.
Councillor McGuire referred to policy CTY10 and said that he did not agree with the setting of a limit of a size of herd/flock on the farm holding and should not be the determining factor when assessing the application.
The Chair concurred with the previous speaker. He added that discussions were held previously by Committee to ensure that the bar for agricultural activity was not set too high and that some level of farm activity be accepted.
Councillor Kelly commented that it was his understanding that DEARA were not permitted to issue a farm business ID to a family member that could not demonstrate a farm business arrangement.
The PPO reiterated that with this particular case there was no evidence to prove farm business due to the lack of receipts presented by the Applicant in order to make an assessment in line with policy. She however assured Members that if this information was forthcoming the proposal would be reviewed accordingly.
Councillor Boyle stated that it was a case of interpretation and, given the evidence presented, he did not believe that the application had met the required test. He proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission for reasons as outlined within the report. Councillor Mooney seconded the proposal.
The outcome of the vote; For 1, Against 7, Abstention 3. The proposal fell.
Alderman Kerrigan referred to the size of the plot of land in question and commented that it may not be farmed for silage provision. He also stated that if the applicant was operating the farm business together with his brother then there was the risk that receipts were identified by the brother’s name.
The Chair suggested to Members that the application be deferred until the applicant provided enough evidence to prove a farm business on site.
The LLSO in response to Members advised that following the outcome of the previous vote, Members had the option to either overturn the Officer’s recommendation and to approve planning permission or to defer the application ... view the full minutes text for item 84
LA11/2018/0356/O – Site for dwelling and domestic garage immediately south west of 92 Camus Road, Douglas Bridge
The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) presented the above application, details of which were previously circulated to Members. Additional information (received as a late item) was also circulated during the meeting and Members were given the opportunity to review the information prior to the presentation of the application by the PPO.
The PPO reported that in reconsideration of the application together with the late information received, Officers remained of the opinion not to grant planning permission for reasons as outlined within the report.
The Chair reminded Members that only those Members present at previous presentations would be permitted to vote.
Members received speaking rights from Mr Noel O’Kane (applicant) who outlined reasons to approve the application.
Discussion ensued after which Councillor Kelly remained of the opinion not to support the PPO’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. He said that having assessed the application against the Strabane Area Plan and Rural Policy (in particular para 123.2.1), he would be of the opinion the proposal was rounding off and therefore proposed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions as outlined within the report. Councillor Dobbins seconded the proposal.
The outcome of the vote was unanimous support of the proposal. (Councillors Mooney and Mellon had no voting rights on this occasion).
Resolved to overturn the PPO’s recommendation to refuse planning application LA11/2018/0356/O and for planning approval to be granted, subject to the conditions as outlined within the report.
The speakers left the meeting at this stage.
LA11/2018/1053/F – 2 No. infill dwellings under policy CTY 8 of PPS 21 at lands 30m South West of 67 Corrody Road, Waterside, Derry, BT47 2QH
The PPO presented the above application, details of which were previously circulated to Members. She recommended that, based on material consideration in line with planning policy, a refusal be granted for reasons as outlined within the report.
Members received speaking rights from Mr Matt Kennedy (agent), who outlined reasons to approve the application. Members sought points of clarification from the speaker.
The PPO clarified for Councillor Boyle that a revised acoustic report had been received. She reminded Members that the application was dealt with under its own merits.
The PPO clarified for Councillor Dobbins that the outcome of the noise impact report submitted by the Environmental Health Department was included in the report presented. She highlighted that the go-kart facility was not the determining factor of the recommendation. She also clarified that the initial Roads issue regarding visibility splays had been resolved and therefore not reflected within the reasons for refusal of the application.
The PPO further clarified for Alderman McClintock that the role and remit of the Environmental Health Department was to ensure that noise was minimised on residential amenity. She added that a balanced view was applied in terms of consideration of noise impact in adherence to policy and that was reflected in the recommendation presented today. ... view the full minutes text for item 78