A planning application for the construction of a dwelling in a garden in the Richhill area has been refused by planners who felt it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

The application relates to a rear garden at 16 Castle Drive, Legacorry.

An objecting neighbour went as far as describing the plans as “garden grab”, with only room for a narrow vehicular access between the side of the existing property at No 16, and the boundary fence with No 18.

The planning application had been lodged by CT Lindsay Chartered Architect, Richhill, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lowe, Bellevue Terrace, Richhill.

Outline planning permission for the construction of a dwelling at the back of this property has been refused. Credit: Google

placeholder image — Outline planning permission for the construction of a dwelling at the back of this property has been refused. Credit: Google

During a presentation to Planning & Regulatory Services committee members in January, Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon senior planning officer, Trudy Chapman said the application seeks outline approval for the erection of a single dwelling to the rear of 16 Castle Drive.

“Castle Drive is part of a wider development which includes Castle Avenue, Castle Parade, and Castle Gardens, and this consists of detached dwellings which are predominantly single storey.

“The application site is part of the rear garden of No 16, and is proposed to take a new access from Castle Drive via the existing turning head to the front of No 16, and then it would pass between No 16 and 18.

“Officers are of the opinion that the proposal does not respect the surrounding context. It’s not appropriate to the character of the site in terms of layout and scale, and would therefore fail to provide a quality residential environment.

Access to the rear of 16 Castle Drive, Richhill, would have been fairly narrow, with just enough width between the side of the existing dwelling and the boundary fence. Credit: ABC Council

“It is out of keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the established residential area.

“In addition, as the proposed dwelling would be located within the rear garden of No 16, with access being provided between No 16 and 18, officers are of the opinion that a dwelling on the site would have the potential to overlook the properties of No 14, 16, and 18 Castle Drive, and would therefore adversely impact the occupants’ privacy and enjoyment of their dwellings and associated private amenity spaces.

“The additional traffic the proposal would attract would also create a general disturbance by way of additional noise and lights to the rear of these properties, and to the sides of No 16 and 18.

“Members are advised that one letter of objection was received from residents of No 14.

An outline illustration of what the applicants had in mind, with the garden being partitioned off, and the construction of a new dwelling. Credit: ABC planning portal

“Their main concerns can be summarised as loss of privacy, being out of character with the area, and it would set a precedent for garden grabbing, loss of the existing turning head and impact on wildlife.

“Both DfI Roads and NI Water were consulted and raised no objection. However, officers are of the opinion that the proposal fails to comply with the [relevant] policies, and therefore recommend that the application is refused.”

£10,000 towards Artist in Residency scheme in ABC Borough

Councillor Scott Armstrong (DUP) asked for clarification regarding access.

The senior planning officer responded: “The access would come from the existing turning head across their front garden and down their side garden.

“So, it literally hugs the side elevation of the existing house, and the boundary between 16 and 18.”

The recommendation to refuse was proposed by Councillor Paul Duffy (SF), who remarked: “I think ‘garden grabbing’ sums the whole thing up for me”, and seconded by Councillor Mary O’Dowd (SF).