Agenda item

(Councillor Garrett had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 15th November, 2016 it had resolved to approve the application subject to an Agreement under Section 76 of the Planning Act. However, it had been brought to the Planning Service’s attention that a number of residential addresses in the adjacent Victoria Square Apartment complex had not received neighbour notification of the proposal, and thus were not given the appropriate opportunity to view the proposal and make comment. Therefore, the Committee was requested to consider the application afresh.

            The Development Engagement Manager outlined the contents of the proposal and highlighted the additional condition regarding a construction management plan to address issues of noise, dust and vibration during the construction phase.

            He informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from the residents, which raised the following points:

·        the date for the Neighbour Notification was after the committee report date of 7th February; 

·        the developer relied on the planning history to justify the proposal;

·        residents had no recollection of being notified on the previous 2011 application;

·        residents addresses were incorrect on the Council’s database;

·        the above complaint had not been responded to;

·        requested that address points for 2011 application be cross referenced to the address points which currently appear on the portal for the Apartments at Victoria Square Residences;

·        the applicant should not benefit from a previous permission;

·        lack of Community Consultation and the failure to conduct community consultation was unlawful;

·        communication issues with the agent;

·        height adds one storey to previous approval and was contrary to BMAP;

·        the roof plant and screening;

·        drawing 15067-DL(PL) 402 shows the Victoria Square Penthouse level to be higher than the roof level of the proposed building. This conflicts with a drawing in the Design and Access Statement;

·        the distances between the buildings. Distances between the office building and apartment balconies;

·        the agent had misunderstood residents’ concerns and had only considered noise from the 6th floor terrace and not overlooking;

·        overshadowing and loss of light;

·        suggested a deferral on the basis that the architects had not addressed their concerns and if the application was not deferred and permission was granted then the following restrictions should be imposed:

Ø     the height to be in line with BMAP and proximity to

             the perimeter of the site;

Ø     location, size, opaqueness and number of windows;

Ø     noise and nuisance associated with construction /

             hours of construction; and 

Ø     hours of operation for the office use.

·        The Regional Development policy and other policies encouraged residential development in the City and that commercial development would compromise this and residential approvals.

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

            He also highlighted that the Urban Design Consultant had outlined support of the scheme and the conservation officer had no objection. 

            The Committee received representations from Mr. B. MacDonald, acting on behalf of the residents of Victoria Square. He outlined a range of objections to the proposal which related to flaws and systemic failures in the planning process, flaws in the pre-application consultation as residents were not in attendance. He suggested that there had been no engagement with residents following the consultation event, therefore the Council had been misinformed (paragraph 3.4). He outlined further issues in that the residents had not received a reply from a query that had been sent to the architects and neighbour notifications had not been received. He suggested that there were fictitious addresses in the computer system for neighbour notification, a lack of reply to correspondence, and questioned why the addendum planning report had been published without residents’ concerns being received. He also suggested that there were material objections to the height, massing, loss of light, loss of privacy, glazing concerns, the building needed to be lowered and set back, and that the residents were concerned about the potential uses of the terrace and amplified music would cause disturbance.  

            The Committee received representations from Mr. M. Burns, Lead Designer, Todds Architects, acting on behalf of the agent and Mr. R. Calvert, applicant, Orby Investment. Mr. Burns outlined a range of issues in support of the application which included the previous extant approval, the design review of the previous approval, the refinement, amendments, and improvements of the quality of the design to reduce the impact on the adjoining properties such as the reduction in storeys in places, sit-back of storeys, removal of the car park, reduction in glazing, and addition of vertical fins. He suggested that they had complied with all the requirement of the Planning Application Notice which included Community Consultation requirements and explained the process that had been undertaken.

            Mr. Burns answered a range of questions from the Committee regarding the use of the roof terrace, proposed plant and overlooking.

            The Committee received further representation from Mr. MacDonald in response to factual inaccuracies which he believed had arisen during the oral representation by the applicant. He suggested that the cross sectional drawings did not reflect the same buildings and levels of the proposal.  He suggested that the potential for parties on the terrace until 11.00pm was unacceptable, there should be a restriction on amplified music, and the issue of overshadowing was also a concern.

            The Development Engagement Manager clarified that the technical drawing illustrated in the presentation was the accurate drawing which had been considered by the case officer in the report.   

            The Committee received further representation from Mr. Burns in response to Mr. MacDonald’s statement. He suggested that significant analysis had been undertaken regarding the sun path and that this had been submitted to the Planning Department.

            During discussion Members raised the issue of the legal obligations of the planning process, clarification on the neighbour notification process and the timescales of the re-consultation.

            The City Solicitor reminded the Committee that the relevant papers and written submissions that were made regarding the application had been circulated to the Committee for consideration before the Committee meeting.

            He advised that the applicant had complied with the legal obligations that were pertinent to the community consultation of the pre-application process.

            In relation to the neighbour notification issue which had been raised by the objector, he informed the Committee that the Council had accepted that the neighbours’ notification in relation to the current application had not taken place before the previous Committee. He reminded the Committee that the application had been referred to the Committee for a re-hearing and that the Committee was not encumbered by the previous decision that had been taken. He asked Members to bear that in mind, in terms of the decision making.

            He advised the Committee that the objectors’ comments in relation to the addendum report needed to be balanced against the fact that the Committee had all of the material objections and representations in front of them. He advised that the Committee was not bound by any recommendation made by the case officer and had in the past departed from the planning officer’s recommendation.

            In relation to the effect of this proposed development, in relation to the building which the objectors had an interest, he advised that  it was up to the Committee to decide, in terms of balance,  whether or not this proposed development, together with the mitigations and conditions imposed, allowed these developments to co-exist with one another, side by side.

            The Committee also sought clarification on the glazing of the building, potential conditions for the outside space, restrictions of amplified music on the terrace, and the possibility of a management plan and section 76 agreement.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Mullan,

            Seconded by Councillor Dorrian,

      That the Committee agrees to approve the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and, in accordance with Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, delegate power to the Director of Planning and Place, in conjunction with the City Solicitor, to enter into discussions with the applicant to explore the scope of any Planning Agreements which might be realised by way of developer contributions and, if so, to enter into such an Agreement on behalf of the Council. The Committee agrees also to the additional condition that there will be no amplified music on the terrace, at any time, and delegates power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of all the conditions. 

            On a vote by show of hands eight Members voted for the proposal and none against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee also noted that the Planning Department would convey the importance of community consultation and the difficulties which may arise with neighbour notifications to future applicants.

(Meeting adjourned for 10 minutes at this point)