Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

Transcription

1 Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report COMMITTEE DATE: 15 th 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: / RE-ADVERTISEMENT/STATUTORY EXPIRY: / 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.

2 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Relevant Site History -A/2014/0005/F 31 Gortnessy Road, Drumahoe, Erection of off-site replacement dwelling APPLICATION WITHDRAWN A/2010/0169/F 30 Gortnessy Road, Drumahoe, Londonderry, Proposed single storey replacement dwelling GRANTED APPROVAL Policy Framework Derry Area Plan 2011 PPS1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?

3 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 5 th 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

4 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 24 th 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

5 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

6 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 18 th 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 2 nd September 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

7 in the middle of the working farmyard, which is in a poor state of repair and was abandoned in 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 30 th September 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:

8 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

9 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 12 th January 2015 is demolished, all rubble and foundations removed.

10 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 15 th January 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 15 th January 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.

11 Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape in the interests of visual amenity. Dwelling to be replaced

12 View of the site from the west

13 View of the site from the east

14