A retrospective planning bid for a raised patio at a Dungannon home has been put on ice after Mid Ulster councillors voiced grave safety fears over an already-built 3.3m boundary wall branded “unsafe”, “substandard” and “the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen” during a site visit.
Mid Ulster planning officers have decided to defer a planning application for the construction of a raised patio at 40 Ranfurly Road, Dungannon.
The planning application for the raised patio with retaining wall and extension to an existing boundary wall was lodged by Margaret Clarke, who lives at the property.
At the July 7 Planning meeting of the local authority, members were made aware of a civil and structural engineer’s report, commissioned by the objector living next door, which makes it clear that the wall is unsafe.
The report states: “I inspected the recently constructed portion of the boundary wall between Nos. 38 and 40 Ranfurly Road, Dungannon.
“At its maximum height, the wall stands 3.3m above your garden level. There the wall retains 1.5m of fill. The exposed portion of the boundary wall is 150mm thick.
“The wall is unreinforced and the final 5.8m length appears unrestrained. The size of the structure exceeds the standard parameters for this type of building.
“In my opinion, the wall is unsafe and it poses a risk to the personal safety of anyone in your garden.”
The raised/extended patio and new boundary wall at the heart of the planning dispute. Image: Mid Ulster District Council
A report was drafted on the back of a site visit which took place on April 24, 2026, and it makes for disturbing reading.
The site visit was attended by Mid Ulster Planning officer, Colin McKeown, as well as councillors Seán McPeake, Deirdre Varsani (current Council Chair), and Barry Monteith.
The report stated: “Members examined the wall in relation to its structural soundness. [The next-door neighbour] demonstrated that he could put a shovel under the foundations of the wall.
“He also demonstrated how it was built over a manhole, how there were pieces of timber in the middle of the blockwork and how it appeared to be not built in a straight line.”
Having looked into the issues raised, the Planning officer explained, in a report dated June 9, that although the extension to the boundary wall is unauthorised, it can no longer be challenged as it was apparently built over 12 months ago: “It has been raised by the objector that the wall is unsafe and not built to an acceptable standard.
“This was inspected by elected members during the members’ site visit, but it was made clear that the safety of the wall is not a Planning matter and that it was not a consideration that we could consider when assessing the wall as being acceptable or unacceptable, in relation to Planning policy.
“I have referred the matter to Building Control who have advised that having inspected the works, they are classed as unauthorised works under the Building Regulations.
“Under Regulation 19 of the Building Regulations, the Council may serve a contravention notice at any time up to 12 months after completion of the works.
“However, following investigation, the unauthorised works appear to be in place for over 12 months, thus outside the scope for enforcement for the Building Control department.
The boundary wall built on behalf of the householder at No 40 Ranfurly Road, Dungannon, has been described as “unsafe” by a structural engineer and is unauthorised. Photo: Mid Ulster District Council
“Whilst Mid Ulster District Council’s Building Control are unable to enforce in this instance, they have indicated that they will issue a letter to the property owners advising them that unauthorised works had been identified relating to the raised patio area, with the recommendation to submit a regularisation application in order that the unauthorised works are suitably remedied to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standards of the Building Regulations.
“There is, however, no obligation for the owner of No. 40 Ranfurly Road to act on this letter of recommendation.
“Given all of the above, I consider that this application has been fully considered (…) and recommend that members approve the application.”
Speaking at the July 7 Planning committee meeting, Council Chair, Councillor Deirdre Varsani (SF, Dungannon DEA) expressed serious concerns regarding safety issues: “I would have thought a wall that is substandard would absolutely be a material consideration, given that this application is to build more of a boundary wall and to build further on.
“There’s already like a platform on the other side, which I would think puts pressure already on a substandard wall.
“What we viewed that day, I’ve never seen anything quite like it. You could put your hand through the wall. It didn’t have foundations. There were pieces of wood stuck in the middle of it. It’s about 30 per cent built over a manhole cover.
“It was absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. I am honestly minded to reverse this and put it forward for a refusal, because how can it not be a material consideration that they are going to put extra pressure on a wall that is already substandard?”
Councillor Seán McPeake (SF, Carntogher DEA) expressed similar concerns: “I was at the site meeting too. It basically comes down to the safety of the wall. You could put your hand through where the bottom of the foundation should be, right through to the neighbouring property, the length of your arm.
“And it was built over an existing post that was presumably a boundary fence. The objector really fears for his wellbeing alongside that wall, because it’s so weak and the workmanship is abominably poor.
“Now, we’re told that Building Control is powerless in that regard. So, I’m at a loss too. I don’t think it should be allowed.
“If it had been done properly — a strong shuttered wall with proper supporting steel and all that — it probably wouldn’t be a problem in Planning terms. But it’s the sheer poor workmanship of the wall that I have the issue with.”
The boundary wall and raised patio at No 40 Ranfurly Road, Dungannon, are built well above the neighbour’s garden. Photo: Mid Ulster planning portal
Councillor Meta Graham (UUP, Clogher Valley DEA) could not understand why the Planning department was seemingly unable to demand remedial measures to ensure that the wall is safe: “Why does it fall outside the remit of enforcement? It has been built without permission. So why can Building Control do nothing about it?
“There’s a structural engineer’s report stating that the wall is unsafe. Who ultimately is going to take responsibility for it? Do we just let it go? It seems absolutely ridiculous.
“If we pass this and this wall falls — or some part of it falls — and hurts somebody, kills somebody, are we going to be held responsible because we have passed a dangerous structure?”
Assistant Director of Development, Claire Linney informed the UUP representative: “As to who would be liable if anything happened to this structure — ultimately it’s the landowner or whoever put the structure up.
“But what is before members tonight are planning considerations, so unless there are planning reasons to refuse, the strong recommendation is that members take cognisance of what is in the case officer’s report.”
Councillor Dan Kerr (Independent, Torrent DEA) seconded Councillor Varsani’s proposal to refuse the planning application, remarking: “I would feel very uncomfortable if it were to be approved tonight, given that the wall is substandard and poses a risk of hurting someone due to the poor workmanship.”
The Council Chair felt that committee members had an obligation to step in and oppose the planning application: “If [Building Control] genuinely could deal with it, that would be one thing, but they actually can’t, because it’s outside a time limit.
“So, does that not bring it back into what we could legitimately say is a material consideration? I think it is, and I am happy to propose that we do not let this one go forward — that we actually refuse it.”
The Assistant Director of Development warned about the possible consequences of refusing a planning application, based on considerations which fall outside Planning policy: “The applicant would have a right of appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), and there is potential for a cost award for unreasonable behaviour.
“So, there could be further consequences for the Council in terms of costs, because there are no Planning reasons why it should be refused.”
Councillor Kyle Black (DUP, Carntogher DEA) proposed deferring the planning application one more time, for further consideration: “I think it would be useful just to take a beat on this one — to get some further information on the situation at hand.
“I’m not keen to approve this because of the structural integrity point. It just doesn’t sit comfortably with me that as a Council we can walk away and have no responsibility for the outworkings of this.”
Councillor Varsani, who had initially proposed refusal, explained that she was now minded to second Councillor Black’s proposal for a deferral: “There really are very serious concerns on this one.
“I think it would be incumbent on us to reflect as carefully as we possibly can. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a case like this in the years I’ve been on this committee. It seems strange that we could go ahead and let this go through, given all the circumstances.
“So, I think it would be worthwhile to at least do some further investigation on this.”
The planning application was consequently deferred.
