Replacement dwelling at 39 Seaview, Warrenpoint, Newry

What was proposed

The application sought to demolish the existing dwelling and build a partly two-storey replacement with landscaping and access relocated to Springfield Road.

“The proposal seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling and associated landscaping works. As previously noted, the site currently contains an existing two-storey chalet-style dwelling, which is proposed to be demolished and replaced. The proposed new development comprises a 2 storey building with 2 large single storey returns to the rear with central courtyard area.”

“The proposal also seeks to close off the vehicular access from Seaview and move all access and parking to the rear of the proposed dwelling with an amended access from the Springfield Road.”

Officer report

The site and setting

The site contained a two-storey chalet-style home within Warrenpoint’s settlement limits, the Area of Townscape Character and the AONB, near the shore.

“Date of Site Visit: 20/06/2025 Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site is an existing two storey chalet style residential property and associated outbuildings located at No.39 Seaview Warrenpoint. The application site is located within the Settlement Development Limits of Warrenpoint as designated within the Banbridge, Newry and Mourne Area Plan and on map 3/06a within the same plan. The site is also within the boundary of the ATC and AONB.”

“The application site sits between No.38 and No.40 Seaview and is bounded to south along Seaview by a small wall topped with railings and a garden behind, there is also an existing vehicular access from Seaview. The northern boundary is bounded by a rendered wall which also has an existing access onto the Springfield Road. The eastern and western boundaries are defined by a block wall with hedging and vegetation mixed throughout.”

Officer report

Earlier planning permission

An extant permission allowed an additional dwelling and detached garage at the rear of the site facing Springfield Road.

“There is currently an extant permission onsite for an additional dwelling to the rear of the site facing the Springfield Road. The details of this application are listed out below:”

“Application Number: LA07/2021/0834/F Proposal: Dwelling house and detached garage with the demolition of an existing out building. Decision: Permission Granted Decision Date: March 2022”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal’s scale, form, massing and contemporary design out of keeping with the established streetscape and sensitive setting.

“The scale, form, and architectural approach of the proposed dwelling are considered to be inappropriate for the site context and fail to respect the established character, appearance, and pattern of development in the surrounding area. The proposal does not successfully respond to the prevailing built form along Seaview, including the established building lines, proportions, and traditional residential design features that contribute to local character.”

“The proposal is currently considered to be entirely out of keeping with the character of this section of Seaview and would adversely impact the established streetscape. Figure 10 below illustrates the existing street scene, while it is accepted this varies along Seaview and is not uncommon in built up urban areas it is considered the proposal does not sympathetically reflect this and would harm the character of such.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

consultees raised no objections overall, although several proposed conditions; the habitats assessment found no adverse effect on any European site.

“DFI Roads- following receipt of an amended PSD, no objection subject to conditions. • HED- No objection subject to conditions. • NI Water- No objections. • SES- HRA completed which found that the project would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European site. • Loughs Agency- No objection subject to conditions. • NED/WMU/Marine and Fisheries- No objection subject to conditions.”

“EVALUATION Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended) Newry, Mourne and Down District Council in its role as the competent Authority under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended), and in accordance with its duty under Regulation 43, has adopted the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) report, and conclusions therein, prepared by Shared Environmental Service, dated 14/11/2025.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Seven neighbouring properties were notified, but no objections, support, petitions or wider representations were received.

“No representations have been received in respect of this application.”

“Letters of Support 0.0 Letters of Objection 0.0 Petitions 0.0 Signatures 0.0 Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter argued that the design suited the varied streetscape, respected the site and would enhance the waterfront.

What members debated

Members debated the townscape character boundary, the significance of the listed buildings consultation and whether the proposal would improve the seafront setting.

“[name withheld] confirmed that HED had been consulted but clarified that their remit was limited to impacts on listed buildings; they did not provide recommendations on conservation areas or ATC issues, although they might offer design guidance in relation to nearby listed buildings.”

“Councillor McAteer proposed overturning the recommendation to approve the application, citing several reasons. • He stated that he took comfort from HED’s consultation response despite differing view of the Planning Officer. • He believed the proposal would enhance the seafront, would not significantly depart from neighbouring dwellings, and would improve the environmental quality of the area as a modern dwelling.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted by show of hands, with seven members supporting the proposal and none opposing or abstaining.

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

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, citing the consultation response, the proposed design and the reduced development scale.

“[name withheld] interjected to clarify that HED’s consultation response only addressed the proposal’s impact on the nearby listed building and did not consider the ATC. He reiterated that the Planning Department’s view remained that the proposal was unacceptable in terms of scale, massing, form and design, and that it would impact the ATC, therefore HED’s response should not be relied upon as reassurance.”

Minutes