Agenda item

(Councillors Bunting, Hutchinson, Jones 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, 2016 and 17th January when it had originally been considered).

            The Chairperson informed the Committee that a third 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 13th December and 17th January. The Committee agreed to receive the third deputation based on the issue of the additional recommendation for refusal, planning history and the development cost report which had been submitted.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 17th January, given the issues which had been raised regarding the viability of housing on the site, the Committee had 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 had 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 case officer outlined the main aspects of the application, which included additional information which had been submitted by the agent, a budget cost estimate, emails form social housing providers, correspondence from Community Places, and a map that detailed the housing zones of the area.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from the agent, as follows:

·        new reason for refusal relating to inappropriate access;

·        alternative access via Oakmount Drive;

·        ASDA car park and hoarding already at the site entrance – restaurant would make no material difference;

·        misquoted/partially quoted legislation;

·        issues about costs and non-viability;

·        lack of interest from Social Housing providers; and

·        BMAP housing allocation and other considerations.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack and advised that an extract from the Planning Act, a Planning Appeals Commission Report on BMAP and previous housing layout had also been included in the late items for Members information

            He explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that:

1. The proposal was contrary to the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 as the site was zoned for housing and, if permitted, would prejudice the delivery of housing in an area of current housing need; and

2. The proposal was contrary to paragraph 4.27 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) in that it would, if permitted, provide an inappropriate entrance to housing development on the remainder of the Housing Zoning NB 04/16 and would not create a quality environment for residents within the rest of the zoned land.

            The Committee received representations from Mr. P. Caldwell, architect, Mr. J. McIlwaine 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 additional reason for refusal regarding the poor entrance. He highlighted that it was not unusual for commercial developments to be on an arterial route. He suggested that there was material consideration that outweighed the housing zoning by BMAP, including the lack of developers’ intent for housing and Housing Executive interest. He also suggested that the proposal would remove an eyesore, bring investment and job creation to the area, and the site had been used historically for commercial business.

            In addition, Mr. McIlwaine explained his objections to the recommendation and provided further explanation of the detailed budget costs report.     Mr. Caldwell also suggested that the site had always struggled to become viable for housing and provided background information of previous proposals for the site. He suggested that the current scheme was the best that could be achieved.

            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 first addendum report (Appendix four), however, the recommendation remained that the application should be refused.

            The Director pointed out that the second reason for refusal regarding the entrance to the site may influence the development of the adjoining site.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hussey, and

            Seconded by Councillor Dorrian,

      That the Committee agrees to approve the application, in line with the draft conditions outlined in the addendum report, and delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Place to agree and finalise the planning conditions.

            On a vote by show of hands four Members voted for the proposal and four against.  There being an equality of votes, the Chairperson exercised his second and casting vote in favour of the proposal and it was accordingly carried.