One dwelling and garage at 39 Bridge Road, Burren, Warrenpoint

What was proposed

The application sought one dwelling and detached garage, partly replacing an earlier approval, with revised access arrangements for the site and an existing dwelling.

“Description of Proposal Erect a dwelling and detached garage in partial substitution to the extant approval granted under LA07/2023/2687/O with access from the public road via an existing & improved access. Construction of a new access to serve an existing dwelling.”

Officer report

Site and planning history

The vacant site is outside settlement limits in the rural area, with earlier permissions for two infill dwellings and a replacement dwelling.

“Date of Site Visit: 31/07/2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site comprises of a vacant parcel of land located along Bridge Road. A wall is present to the rear of the site with temporary metal fencing towards the road side. The southern boundary with No 37 consists of wooden fencing with the northern boundary undefined. The application site is located outside any defined settlement limits and within the rural area.”

“Planning History Application Site: LA07/2023/2687/O- 2 infill dwellings with detached garages and associated siteworks immediately adjacent to and N of no. Bridge Road, Burren. Outline permission granted 1 st March 2024.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the access arrangement unacceptable because it used adjoining curtilage, failed to respect the local development pattern and would damage rural character.

“However, under LA07/2023/2687/O the proposed access to each dwelling was served by two separate accesses running directly from Bridge Road into each site (which was in keeping with the character of this rural area). The proposal now submitted involves relocating the existing access which serves No 39 from the north of the site to the south of the site.”

“The principle of using the curtilage of an existing adjoining dwelling in order to gain access to a new dwelling is not an acceptable access arrangement and is not typical of the area. The resultant access will sweep into the site from the south which does not respect the existing development pattern as this access arrangement is not evident in the locality.”

Officer report

Other planning considerations

The dwelling design, residential amenity, sewage arrangements, roads matters and proposed planting were considered acceptable subject to conditions.

“The proposed dwelling is one and a half storey with a ridge height of 7m above finished floor level. It includes walled dormers, single storey porch and return to the rear which is set down with chimneys on the ridge with internal chimney breasts. The dwelling is of similar design to adjoining No 39, whereby its size, design, scale proportions and appearance are considered appropriate for this rural location and are in keeping with the character of the area.”

“Policy CTY16 Planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem. The application has outlined on the P1 form that a WWTP is the proposed means of disposing sewage. Environmental Health have been consulted and are content with this arrangement subject to condition.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Roads, Environmental Health and NI Water raised no objections, and no neighbour objections or other representations were received.

“April 2025 Date of Press Advertisement: November 2024 ES Requested: No Consultations: • DFI Roads- No objections, conditions provided.”

“Environmental Health- No objections, conditions provided.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, saying the access was acceptable, the design raised no concerns and the proposal would improve visibility and road safety.

Members debated the access

Members and the agent debated whether policy applied to the access, whether the hedge would be retained and how the proposal would affect rural character.

“Councillor Hanna queried whether DFI Roads had any objections, to which [name withheld] confirmed that DFI Roads had raised no concerns but emphasized that the Planning Department’s refusal was based on policy, citing CTY8 and the access arrangement as being out of character with the area. He referenced previous appeals that had been dismissed on access grounds.”

“Councillor McAteer proposed overturning the refusal recommendation, stating that the proposal would not contravene policy, particularly given the variety of existing access arrangements along the road. Councillor Hanna seconded this, adding that the rural character would be minimally affected.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted by show of hands with ten votes for, no votes against and no abstentions.

“The proposal was put to a vote by way of a show of hands and voting was as follows:”

Minutes