Agenda item

(Alderman McGimpsey, Councillors Bunting, Jones and Garrett took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the previous meetings on 17th January and 14th March when it had originally been considered).

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

            The Committee was reminded that the application had been originally presented to the Planning Committee on 17th January and had been deferred so that legal advice could be obtained on the demolition of the façade and its potential consequences for the extant planning permission. An addendum report was considered by the Committee, at its meeting on 14th March and given the issues which had been raised regarding the size and space standards of the proposed living space, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable potential reasons for refusal to be outlined for consideration in an amended report at the next meeting.

            The Case Officer outlined the Second Addendum Report and advised that notwithstanding the included refusal reason, the recommendation remained that the application should be approved. The case officer advised that it had been considered that the space standards within the Addendum to PPS7 did not apply in this case and highlighted that all relevant material consideration must be taken into account, including the nature of the proposed occupation of the apartments, the location within a high density residential area not characterised by family accommodation, the replication of the front façade and the restoration of the street scape and the history of previous planning approvals for similar apartment development on the site which also did not meet the space standards.

            The Committee received representations from Mr. T. Doyle, agent and Mr. J. Megaw, applicant. Mr. Doyle outlined a range of support for the proposal.  He highlighted that the LC1 space standards did not apply in this case and if they did, the proposed design would meet them. He suggested that the kitchen and living room exceeded those typically found in the area by 75%. He suggested that other similar proposals had previously been approved in the area and that the design and density had been carefully considered.  Mr. Megaw suggested that the proposal would bring quality, attractive accommodation to the area and would take away an eyesore from Malone Avenue. 

            During discussion, Members raised issues regarding space standards, homes for life versus homes for the short-term, the unauthorised demolished façade of the building and the enforcement of this, and the importance of the Malone Conservation Area Plan.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hussey, and

            Seconded by Councillor Mullan,

      That the Committee agrees to approve the application, in line with the recommendation outlined in the original case officer’s report, and delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Place to agree and finalise the wording of the planning conditions.

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

            The Committee also agreed that the enforcement officer should consider the expediency of the enforcement regarding the demolished façade at the site and the Director of Planning and Place would write to the Department for Infrastructure to clarify the space standards for different types of planning proposals.