Appendix 14

Derry City and District Council Planning Committee Report

COMMITTEE DATE: 3 May 2017

APPLICATION No: LA11/2015/0396/O

APPLICATION TYPE: Outline

PROPOSAL: Proposed replacement dwelling

LOCATION: 100m NE of 21 Ballinacross Road,

APPLICANT: Kevin Doherty, 21 Ballinacross Road, Donemana, BT82 0PY

AGENT: McCormick Architecture, 8 Old Castle Road, BT78 4HX

ADVERTISEMENT: 20/08/2015

STATUTORY EXPIRY: 3/09/2015

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: Refusal

All planning application forms, drawings, letters etc. relating to this planning application are available to view on www.planningni.gov.uk

1. Description of Proposed Development Proposed replacement dwelling

2. EIA Determination The proposal is not EIA Development 3. Site and Surrounding Area Site as outlined in red on the submitted location map consists of three elements. First it contains the first 30m of the private driveway to 21 Ballynacross Road, then it consists of a small paddock that has a stone built barn in the north-eastern corner and finally the site contains the south- eastern corner of an adjacent field (see site location map below; the subject building is coloured green).

The eastern roadside boundary is a 1.0m high timber post and rail fence and a tapering gravelled visibility splay (between the driveway and the stone barn). To the north of the subject building, the roadside boundary with the "adjacent field" is a 1.0m verge and a sheep wire fence, that boundary also contains a group of 12.0m high trees. The northern and western boundaries with the adjacent field are undefined on the ground. The southern boundary is a yellow conifer hedge being the domestic boundary of the nearby dwelling. The driveway to that dwelling is within the Appendix 14

red line but the developer has indicated that he wishes to create a new site access. The site is level. The area is of rolling fields with moderate boundaries.

STRUCTURE IDENTIFIED AS THE DWELLING TO BE REPLACED

4. Site Constraints

No Development Plan Zonings or other policy constraints. Appendix 14

5. Neighbour Notification Report

6. Relevant Site History  J/1999/0572/F off site replacement dwelling approved with condition requiring the removal of dwelling to be replaced. Approved 07 February 2000.  J/2007/0599/O application to replace the barn with a dwelling (same proposal as now but on a smaller site) recommended for refusal but withdrawn by developer. Withdrawn 19 August 2010  J/2008/0192/F application for removal of condition to allow the retention of dwelling for agricultural purposes, recommended for refusal but was withdrawn by developer. Withdrawn 20 August 2008. It must be noted that on this application, the description of the proposal provided by the developer was for a “Domestic dwelling and garage to replace existing barn”. 7. Policy Framework Strabane Area Plan 1986-2001. SPPS PPS21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside policy CTY3- Replacement Dwellings PPS2 PPS3

8. Consultee Responses  Transportni find the proposal acceptable and require 2.4 x 80 metre visibility splays at RM stage.  Environmental Health advised that the developer should be informed about possible noise nuisance from nearby wind turbines. They also provided comments to control the location of the septic tank and the discharge therefrom.  NIEA Archaeology and Built Heritage were consulted on the history of the existing structure on the site and has advised that it was not a dwelling and refer to it as an outbuilding associated with a now demolished dwelling. Appendix 14

9. Representations

One neighbour was notified and there were no objections

10. Planning Assessment, including Other Material Considerations Section 6(4) of the Planning (Northern ) Act 2011, requires the Council to make planning decisions in accordance with the area plan for the council area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Strabane Area Plan 1986-2001 applies in this case. The site is located in the rural remainder outside the development limits of any settlement.

Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) The SPPS introduces transitional arrangements which will operate until the Council’s Plan Strategy has been adopted. During this period Planning Authorities will apply existing policy (in this case PPS2, 3, & 21 – the retained policies) together with the SPPS. Any conflict between the SPPS and the retained policies must be resolved in favour of the SPPS.

As the development is in the countryside, Policy CTY1 of PPS21 provides the policy context. Policy CTY1, identifies a range of types of development that are, in principle, acceptable in the countryside. One of these is replacement dwellings where the proposal is in accordance with policy CTY3.

Policy CTY3 states that planning permission will be granted for a replacement dwelling where the building to be replaced exhibits the essential characteristics of a dwelling. In respect of the essential characteristics of a dwelling, it would at a minimum be anticipated that a building of this vintage (c. 1930 as advised by NIEA) would have chimneys on the ridge line. None are evident. Internally whilst a wood burning range is in situ, there is no hearth or other evidence of a fire place or evidence of the removal of a fire place on the gable walls. There are two ground floor rooms but no internal interconnection between them; both rooms are individually served by doors which open directly onto the external yard; it is thereby necessary to go outside building to gain entry to the adjoining room of the building. Internally there is no access to the upper floor; a staircase would be expected. On balance it is not considered that the subject building exhibits the essential characteristics of a dwelling. Appendix 14

Juxtaposition of the dwelling (left) now removed and the subject building (right)

Ju xtaposition of the dwelling (now removed) and subject building.

Subject building. Dwelling now removed.

NIEA Historic Environment Division was consulted for advice regarding the likelihood of the building being or having been a dwelling. NIEA provided 2nd and 4th editions of the OS map (see map below), which show respectively the position of a linear building which when compared with the photos above would appear to be the dwelling now removed. The dwelling dates to c. 1848- 1863. On the 4th edition of the OS map c.1930 the subject building is evident. NIEA conclude that, the subject building is considered to be an outbuilding associated with the dwelling.

A number of window openings are apparent on the north facing elevation and these have been presented as evidence that the building was formally a dwelling. It must also be considered however that agricultural buildings of this vintage would have required both a natural source of light and ventilation. Appendix 14

Based on NIEA’s advice and taking into account the architectural elements of the building as identified above and the photographic evidence on the site history file showing the building in the context of the adjacent dwelling already replaced, it is considered that on balance the building is an outbuilding and reflects the traditional relationship typical of dwellings and their associated outbuildings in the rural area. This being the case, policy CTY3 does not apply to consideration of this proposal, as it states that “Buildings designed and used for agricultural purposes, such as sheds or stores, and buildings of a temporary construction will not however be eligible for replacement under this policy”. The building may however qualify for conversion and reuse under policy CTY4.

PPS2 Given the recommendation to refuse planning permission, a biodiversity survey including bat survey has not been requested. Should Council be minded to approve this application, it will be necessary to request completion and submission of such a survey. Appendix 14

11. Conclusion and Recommendation The proposal is not acceptable under the SPPS or policy CTY3 as it does not represent a replacement dwelling opportunity. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to policy CTY1 in that it does not represent a form of residential development that is permissible in the countryside.

12. Reasons for Refusal

1/ The proposal is contrary to Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

2/ The proposal is contrary to Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policies CTY1 and CTY3 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the building to be replaced does not exhibit the essential characteristics of a dwelling and appears to have been designed and used for agricultural purposes.

3/ The proposal is contrary to Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy NH2 of Planning Policy Statement 2 Natural Heritage in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will prevent the destruction of the breeding sites or resting places of species protected by law.