Agenda item

            (Alderman McGimpsey and Councillors Hutchinson and Lyons took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 13th December when it had originally been considered).

            (Before the meeting, the Chairperson informed the Committee that a second request to speak had been received from the applicant citing exceptional circumstances. He advised that the group had already made a presentation at the Committee Meeting on 13th December. The Committee agreed to receive the second deputation based on the issue of the zoning of the land for housing in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP)).

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 13th December, given the issues which had been raised regarding the zoning of the land and residential amenity, it had agreed to defer consideration of the application so that the amended plans which had been received could be assessed regarding residential amenity and for a reconsidered potential recommendation for an approval, in spite of it being zoned for housing in BMAP, to be provided for consideration.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from the agent regarding the zoning of the land for housing in BMAP, flexibility on zoned sites, the Planning Appeals Commission’s designation of the site, Surveyor’s confirmation of construction costs outstripping the end value, planning history of the site, BMAP’s ability to meet housing needs, and the established character and uses of the Shore Road. He advised that the correspondence outlined a range of issues, such as the current site being an eyesore, the site formed a small portion of the housing zone and would not prejudice the remainder of the site and the proposed drive-thru restaurant would be a subordinate use of the site. It was reported that the agent had also submitted plans to address the concerns regarding the use of the restaurant and car park and the applicant would accept a planning condition restricting hours of use of the restaurant and car park from 6am to midnight. 

            The case officer also highlighted that further correspondence had been received from the applicant clarifying the Planning history of the site. It explained that the purpose of planning approval under Z/2009/0015/F, was to modify part of the layout of the previous approval under Z/2003/2855/F, reducing the number of houses within the northern area of the site from 10 to 5. The reason stated for this amendment was that the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company had vested an area of the land and therefore reduced the developable area of the site. This resulted in a reduction from the previously approved layout from 53 to 48 units.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack.

            The case officer advised that if Members were minded to approve the application, it was recommended that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Place to finalise planning conditions. He pointed out that the draft conditions were outlined in the report, however, the recommendation remained that the application should be refused.

            The Committee received representations from Ms. D. Smith, representing McDonald’s and Mr. R. O’Toole, acting on behalf of the applicant. Mr. O’Toole outlined a range of objections to the recommended refusal which related to the expired permission for housing, retail being consistent with the previous use of the site, and housing developments being unobtainable. He suggested that the current site was an eyesore and that the fencing would remain should the development be refused. He suggested that the impact of the proposal on BMAP would be minimal, the proposal was for only a small percentage of the site, and the application had the potential for job creation and investment in the area. In addition, Ms. Smith explained her objections to the recommendation and suggested that there was a keen commitment to invest in the area. She advised that the proposed restaurant was sustainable, would provide new employment to the area and employees would have access to a range of training and qualifications. She suggested that the company would work hard to keep the site litter free.

            After discussion, given the issues which had been raised regarding the viability of housing on the site, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable the applicant to provide a viability analysis or robust evidence to demonstrate that   marketing of the site for housing had been undertaken. The Committee also agreed that a site visit be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The Committee noted also that further context be added to the report regarding an overview of housing demand in North Belfast and the City.