Delegated planning applications decided by appointed officer – Week Commencing 08 August 2016

Reference No. Applicant Proposal Site Location Officer Objections Recommendation LA06/2016/0449/F Ms Elizabeth Single-storey rear extension 29 Park Crescent, Approval 0 Todd

DEA: Comber

LA06/2015/0933/F Elim Car park to fit around 15 cars 25 Moss Road, Refusal 1 Church Millisle

DEA:

LA06/2016/0680/F Stephen Connolly Extension to school to include Towerview Primary School, Approval 0 2 No. classrooms, resource 100 Towerview Cresent, area and associated works Bangor

DEA: Bangor East and

LA06/2016/0583/F Alfred Stewart Single storey side extension to 1 Windmill Gardens, Approval 0 dwelling to allow bedroom and Millisle bathroom DEA: Ards Peninsula

LA06/2015/0832/O George Murray Proposed retirement farm Adjacent to 78 Refusal 0 dwelling Carrickmannon Road,

DEA: Comber LA06/2016/0431/F R Pollock Single storey side extension to 32 Rubane Road, Approval 0 allow granny flat, and rear Kircubbin extension to create link and additional living space DEA: Ards Peninsula

LA06/2015/0763/F Mary Clare Dean Erection of two storey rear 5 Sheridan Drive, Helen’s Approval 0 extension, new dormer Bay windows to front, porch, alteration and pitched roof to DEA: & existing rear dormers

LA06/2016/0195/F N Day Replacement of church Elim Church, Approval 1 building with one detached 50 Moss Road, dwelling Millisle

DEA: Ards Peninsula

LA06/2015/0907/O Ms Mira Ratkovic Demolition of existing sunroom Side garden of 14 Circular Refusal 8 and erection of 1 no. detached Road East, Holywood (6 individual dwelling including any addresses) associated landscaping, DEA: Holywood & driveway and access Clandeboye

LA06/2016/0617/F Cats Protection Temporary storage container 270 Road, Temporary 0 to facilitate operational use of Dundonald approval existing cat centre DEA:

LA06/2016/0575/F Karen Agnew Single-storey rear sun lounge 5 Drive, Approval 0 extension Newtownards

DEA: Newtownards LA06/2016/0578/F Brendan Murray Single-storey rear extension, 92 Belfast Road, Approval 0 loft conversion with dormer, Comber and alterations DEA: Comber

LA06/2015/0133/F Mr Noel Gilroy Retaining wall and rear 91 A Princetown Road, Approval 3 extension to provide dining Bangor room and three bedrooms DEA: Bangor West

LA06/2016/0418/F Paula McCreery Single storey rear extension to 26 Whitethorn Drive Approval 0 dwelling, and new windows on Newtownards gable DEA: Newtownards

LA06/2016/0330/F Mr Farooq Erection of a single storey 14b Circular Road West, Approval 0 Ahmed extension and alterations to Holywood existing attached garage including a new parking area. DEA: Holywood & Clandeboye

LA06/2016/0560/F Paul and Anna Extend curtilage of existing 20 Coach Road, Approval 0 Hamilton house to accommodate yard, Comber shed and ménage for domestic equestrian purposes DEA: Comber

LA06/2015/0699/O Mr William Cave Proposed dwelling under Approx. 200m North West of Refusal 0 Policy CTY10 of Planning 29 Island View Road, Policy Statement 21

DEA: Comber

LA06/2016/0458/F Fold Housing Proposed solar PV panels on 3 Redburn Square, Holywood Approval 0 roof of building DEA: Holywood & Clandeboye

LA06/2016/0388/F NIHE (South Ground floor single storey rear 15 Ballymacruise Park, Approval 0 Region) extension incorporating a lobby Millisle and shower-room DEA: Ards Peninsula

LA06/2016/0351/A Jim O'Neil New shop sign to existing 116 Clandeboye Road, Consent 0 fascia, including signage board Bangor and vinyl graphics DEA: Bangor West

LA06/2016/0344/F Paul Greenwood Proposed garage building with 11 Ailsa Road, Holywood Approval 0 store DEA: Holywood & Clandeboye

LA06/2016/0398/F Education Extension to provide secure Grange Park Primary School, Approval 0 Authority (South lobby and increased size of Grange Park, Bangor Eastern Region) secretary’s office DEA: Bangor West

LA06/2016/0286/F Mr Baird Construction of a new two 1 Circular Road West Approval 0 storey dwelling, coach house, walled garden with greenhouse Holywood and other associated site works including the DEA: Holywood and construction of new entrance Clandeboye gates and pillars Refusal Reasons for LA06/2015/0933/F 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy AMP 2 of Planning Policy Statement 3 as it has not been demonstrated that it would be possible within the application site to provide adequate sight lines where the proposed access joins Moss Road.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy AMP 10 of Planning Policy Statement 3: Access Movement and Parking, in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will not be detrimental to local environmental quality and that it would be compatible with the adjoining residential use.

3. The proposal is contrary to Section 3(6) of The Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (NI) 2015 in that insufficient information has been submitted to enable proper determination of the application.

Refusal Reasons for LA06/2015/0832/O

1. The proposal is contrary to Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site not visually linked (or sited to cluster) with an established group of buildings on the farm.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the creation of ribbon development along Carrickmannon Road.

3. The proposal is contrary to 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.

Refusal Reasons for LA06/2015/0907/O

1. The proposal is contrary to policy QD1 (a) of Planning Policy Statement 7 Quality Residential Environments in that it would, if permitted, result in over development of the site and cause unacceptable damage to the local character and environmental quality of the established residential area by reason of its density and layout which would be out of keeping with the character of the area and which consists mainly of large detached houses within large curtilages with generous spacing between the buildings. The proposed development would also create an unacceptable precedent and the potential cumulative impact of similar development would further detract from the environmental quality, residential amenity and established character of the surrounding area. 2. The proposal is contrary to policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 Quality Residential Environments in that the proposed development involves intensification of site usage within an Area of Townscape Character and it does not meet any of the exceptional circumstances and would if permitted, adversely affect the local character of the area. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy QD1 (h) of the Planning Policy Statement 7, Quality Residential Environments in that the development would, if permitted, result in an unacceptable adverse effect on adjoining existing properties in terms of overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy and amenity. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy LC 1(a) and (b) of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 7, Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas, in that the proposed density would be significantly higher than that found in the established residential area and the proposed pattern of development would not be in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the established residential area. 5. The proposal is contrary to Policy ATC 2 of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 6, Areas of Townscape Character, in that the proposed development would not respect the built form of the area and would not maintain or enhance the overall character of the area by reason of its density, layout and plot subdivision.

Refusal Reasons for LA06/2015/0699/O 1. The proposal is contrary to Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active and has been established for at least six years.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed new building is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and access to the dwelling is not obtained from an existing lane.

3. The proposal is contrary to 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.