Planning permission refused for Ardboe apartments and bedsits

Two retrospective planning applications for the conversion of existing buildings into apartments and bedsits at 52 Killycolpy Road, between Ardboe and Stewartstown, have been refused.

Kevin Quinn, from Kilycanavan Road in Ardboe, sought retrospective approval to convert a dwelling and adjoining unused shop floor into six self-contained apartments. A second application proposed converting a mechanics workshop into eight single-room bedsits, each with a bathroom. Plans also included an additional floor and tarmacking an existing yard for parking.

The applications were considered at Mid Ulster District Council’s Planning Committee meeting on October 6.

Principal Planning Officer Phelim Marrion told members: “Policies in the SPPS (Strategic Planning Policy Statement) do allow for conversion works to create more than one dwelling where they relate to a locally important building and the conversion involves minimal intervention.

“However, this is not minimal intervention and these are not locally important buildings. Both buildings have had extensive works carried out and these have significantly changed the appearance and doubled the floor space of both buildings.

“Works have been nearly completed in both developments and that’s without the benefit of any planning permission.

“There is an enforcement notice on the gym at the rear of this site, which was also carried out without the necessary planning permission. The report highlights concerns about privacy, residential amenity and a lack of information about who the proposal is to accommodate.

“Issues in relation to road safety have also been raised and DfI Roads have indicated the access is substandard.

“There’s a recent submission that would appear to be trying to make the proposal fit with policies after they’ve been completed, instead of through the proper process of submitting a planning application and having it considered and assessed against the policies that are there.

“Members, you’re asked this evening to accept the recommendations to refuse these applications.”

A neighbouring resident raised concerns about the cumulative impact on surrounding households.

She said: “This is not simply about the two applications individually. It’s about the cumulative impact of the development on the existing residents who live around this site.

“The bedsit building has increased significantly in height from approximately four metres to six metres, and the officer states that it’s overbearing, affects light and overlooks properties to the south.

“For us, this isn’t just a planning issue on paper. It’s changed our lives. Our privacy has been seriously affected. The neighbouring property on the other side has more than 20 windows directly overlooking their property, and additional development brings further overlooking and loss of privacy.

“Our home should be somewhere where our family can feel private and comfortable. Instead, we increasingly feel overlooked in our home and garden.”

Speaking in favour, Liam Curry requested a deferral to allow the applicant to discuss concerns with planning officers and present a wider regeneration vision.

He said: “It’s an opportunity to allow these applications to be considered in the context of a comprehensive vision for the regeneration and reuse of an established group of former commercial and employment buildings.

“The applicant is from the locality and is a long-established employer. Together with his son, he has identified an opportunity to transform the site into a health, wellbeing and recreational hub, incorporating fitness and therapeutic wellness services.

“In our view, this represents a positive opportunity to bring existing buildings back into productive use rather than allowing them to continue to deteriorate.

“These applications form part of a wider vision for the regeneration of this cluster of employment-generating buildings as a health, wellbeing and recreation destination.”

A householder speaking on behalf of neighbouring residents opposed the bedsit application, arguing the gym had previously been refused planning permission and dismissed at appeal.

She said: “The applicant will frame this proposal as an expansion of an existing gym. However, there is no planning history or consent for a gym at this site. The gym was refused by this committee and later dismissed at appeal.

“Members are not therefore being asked to expand an established business, but retrospectively legitimise eight units of unauthorised accommodation in the countryside.

“The applicant cannot expand a gym that doesn’t have planning permission.

“The raised building overlooks properties to the south, particularly No. 46, with significant glazing to the front elevation and rooms looking out over private gardens.

“The sheer bulk and scale of the proposed two-storey accommodation block will loom over the garden of No. 54A, creating an unacceptable prison-like sense of enclosure.

“Councillors, we ask you to see through the wording of this application. It is a major unauthorised apartment block in a protected rural area.

“On behalf of the community, we ask you to protect the countryside, uphold the integrity of the planning system and refuse this planning application.”

The refusal recommendation was proposed by Councillor Mark Robinson (DUP, Clogher Valley DEA) and seconded by Councillor Clement Cuthbertson (DUP, Dungannon DEA).