Dwelling and garage at Lands adjacent and east of 84a Warrenpoint Road, Newry

The site and surroundings

The site was part of an agricultural field behind an existing house, in a steep area with residential and agricultural uses.

“Date of Site Visit: March 2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The proposed dwelling is to be located to the rear of No.84a Warrenpoint Road, which is currently part of an agricultural field. The access is proposed to utilise parts of both 84 and 84a Warrenpoint Road. The topography of the site and the surrounding area rises steeply from the road. The area is characterised by residential and agricultural uses.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions were granted for a dwelling and garage, including an infill dwelling replacing a previous approval.

“Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: Jul 2014 Proposal: Erection of infill dwelling and garage in substitution of approval granted under P/2010/0943/F”

“Application Number: P/2010/0943/F Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: November 2010 Proposal: Erection of dwelling with alterations to existing access…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The consultees raised no objections, with NI Water requesting conditions, and no representations were received.

“NI Water (05/03/2025) – No objection, subject to conditions…”

“Representations: None received Letters of Support 0 Letters of Objection 0 Petitions 0 Signatures 0 Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures 0”

Officer report

What the supporter said

The supporter argued that the site clustered with the farm buildings, was screened from view and would use an established access with limited works.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned the access, noise, ownership and distance from the farm buildings before considering whether clustering was demonstrated.

“Councillor Rice asked whether concerns regarding noise were immaterial given the existing farm use, to which [name withheld] responded that the access was not a laneway but the private driveway of No. 84A. He stated that any informal access to the field did not override residential amenity considerations and that the farm had a formal access further north.”

“In response to a question from Councillor D. Murphy, [name withheld] advised that the distance from the farm buildings was approximately 30 metres. He stated that clustering was assessed on factors such as visual linkage and that visibility alone did not establish clustering, explained that the proposed dwelling, positioned behind existing houses not associated with the farm, would be read primarily with those houses from key viewpoints, and that the access arrangements reinforced…”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Six members voted for approval, none against and none abstained; the committee approved the application contrary to the officer recommendation.

“Councillor McAteer proposed to overturn the recommendation to an approval, staging that he believed the proposal was visually linked, formed part of a cluster of buildings, and was difficult to distinguish from surrounding development. He considered the buildings to be screened and accepted the local understanding of the entrance. He concluded that the proposal demonstrated sufficient clustering to justify approval.”

“AGREED: On the proposal of Councillor McAteer, seconded by Councillor D Murphy, it was agreed to issue an approval in respect of planning application LA07/2024/1128/O contrary to officer recommendation as contained in the Case Officer Report.”

Minutes