Agenda item

(Councillor Jones took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 17th January 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 applicant had already made a presentation at the Committee Meeting on 17th January. The Committee agreed not to receive the second deputation).

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 17th December, given the issues which had been raised regarding the character of the area, car parking, and the size of the proposal, it had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The Committee had agreed also that appropriate conditions be included within the report for consideration by the Committee in February, so that the option to grant approval to the proposal could be considered.

            The case officer outlined the contents of the report and informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from the agent objecting to the recommendation to refuse the application. He suggested that all forward looking policies pointed towards an increase in the number and choice of dwellings needed in Belfast, the elevated gardens were due to the lie of the land, the applicant had never experienced privacy problems, the ownership proposal was not supported by any known planning policies and that the family needed to maintain flexibility.

            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 the Committee were inclined to approve the application, draft conditions were outlined in the report, including one in relation to the ownership of the dwellings by a Section 76 agreement and a planning agreement. He highlighted that an additional occupancy planning condition to restrict the occupancy of both dwellings to the same family ownership also be included, as follows: “The occupation of dwelling number 42a, as indicated on drawing 03, shall be limited to direct family Members of the occupants of dwelling 42. A direct family member should be a spouse, parent, or sibling, son or daughter, and should include any dependents of that person or a widow or a widower of such a person, in the interests of residential amenity.” He advised that it was recommended that delegated authority also be given to the Director of Planning and Place to finalise planning conditions.

            The case officer advised that the recommendation remained that the application should be refused for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal was contrary to Policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments and Policy LC 1 of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 7: Safeguarding the Character of Established Areas in that it would, if permitted, result in unacceptable damage to the local character and environmental quality of the established residential area, by reason of additional in-curtilage parking, a second new access and subdivision of the curtilage resulting in a plot size which would be out of character with the pattern of development in the area and would set an undesirable precedent; and

2.     The proposal was contrary to Policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments in that the proposed development would, if permitted, result in an adverse impact on residential amenity of prospective occupants by way of inter-overlooking between the properties into and out of the resulting houses at the rear.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Armitage

            Seconded by Councillor Hutchinson,

      That the Committee agrees to approve the application, and delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Place to agree and finalise planning conditions, to include the proposed additional occupancy condition, as outlined by the Case Officer.

Amendment

            Moved by Councillor Magee,

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett,

      That the Committee agrees to approve the application, and delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Place to agree and finalise planning conditions, without the additional occupancy condition.

            On a vote by show of hands three Members voted for the amendment and five against and it was declared lost.

            The original proposal standing in the name of Councillor Armitage and seconded by Councillor Hutchinson was put to the meeting, with five Members voting for the proposal and none against and it was declared carried.

(Councillor Hussey entered the meeting at this point)