Plans for the construction of a wall – to ‘act as a boundary around the approved residential development’ of new homes at Gosford – have been given the go-ahead despite four letters and a petition of objection.
As Armagh I reported in June, the proposed wall lies “adjacent and to the west of Gosford Castle, Markethill”, with two applications made to ABC Council — one seeking full planning permission and the other listed building consent.
An application to build 11 one-and-a-half storey properties – three detached, two semi-detached, and six townhouses – in the shadow of Gosford Castle was given the green light in June 2023, after an appeal against an earlier refusal by ABC Council was successful.
The proposal for the boundary involves “one section of wall”, which would be “positioned to the rear of the approved dwellings, connecting to the existing wall”.
As council’s planning committee sat on Wednesday, approval for both wall and gate – continued in applications submitted in the name of MFF Contracts – was granted.
According to the report to committee, proposals related to the “erection of a boundary wall with pedestrian gate along one boundary of an existing vacant area of land which was previously used as a car park”. All other boundaries of the vacant land are “enclosed by existing walls, except where breaks exist for entrance purposes”.
The wall would be approximately 32 metres long and 1.68 metres high.
It would be “finished in locally sourced natural stone to match the existing adjoining walls – which enclose the vacant site – and finished off with rounded granite coping”.
The new wall will be “attached to existing walls enclosing the vacant site, lying to the immediate north and south of the site, thereby linking the two walls and closing off an existing opening along the eastern boundary of the vacant site”.
Some 7.5 metres from the northern edge of the site, a metal pedestrian gate is planned within the wall, approximately 1.2 metres wide and two metres tall.
It would be made of “galvanised mild steel and painted black”.
As the applications were presented, committee was told that four “identically worded” letters of objection were received from four separate addresses. In addition, there was a petition of objection containing 21 signatures.
Objectors raised a list of concerns.
It had been claimed there was no onsultation between the applicant and neighbouring properties.
But planning officials, in their report, said that while it was considered “good practice for applicants to engage with neighbouring parties prior to and/or during the application process”, there was “no legal requirement for the applicant to do so under this application”.
Among other issues, objectors claimed there was no detail of security or maintenance features on the gate, and the gate was “not desired by current residents to access the residents’ common garden area”.
Objectors argued the gate would “compromise the security and privacy of existing residents”, and “there would be no right of access for future residents of the approved housing development through the gate onto private Gosford Castle grounds”.
The gate, it was further claimed, would “undermine the communal nature of the open space adjoining the site”.
Officers, in their report, said the proposed wall and gate are located approximately 19 metres from the nearest residential properties at 3C and 5A Gosford Castle, and the development is “not considered to have any adverse impact on the privacy or amenity of these or any other neighbouring residents”.
And they added: “Given the scale and location of the wall, it would also not result in any loss of light or overshadowing on neighbouring properties.
“At present no boundary exists between the vacant lands and the grounds of Gosford Castle within the application site. As such there is currently unhindered access between these sites.
“It is noted that objectors have raised concerns with the proposed gate within the wall and the access that that gate would provide between sites. As no boundary treatment currently exists in this location, access between the sites already exists.
“Any rights of access are a civil matter and lie outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority.
“Some residents have expressed that they do not seek this access. This objection reason is not a reason to refuse planning permission, particularly given that there is currently unhindered access between the sites in this location. Members are advised that any security or maintenance of the gate will be a matter for the developer to manage.
“Given that there are currently no boundary treatments on this application site, the proposed development is not considered to compromise the security and privacy of any resident within Gosford Castle.”
Officers believed the boundary wall and gate would “sit comfortably within the landscape, in the context of the existing development in the immediate vicinity and will not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area”.
A representative of Bell Rolston planning consultancy had taken part in the meeting.
Lauren Coulter said they welcomed the recommendation to approve and for listed building consent and she was there to take any questions from committee members.
But there were none forthcoming.
Sinn Fein Councillor Kevin Savage, who chairs the planning committee, said: “This seems like a suitable application. It will tidy up the site from what it is currently.”
And party colleague, Councillor Mary O’Dowd, added: “I don’t even think we need a debate to be honest.”
Ulster Unionist Gordon Kennedy was also satisfied with what was proposed, stating: “I think it will be an improvement on what’s there.”
