Agenda item

            The case officer apprised the Committee of the application for the demolition of the existing building known as ‘Porters Annex’ along Apsley Street and the erection of a new 4 storey apartment block containing 20 apartments.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following additional information had been received, which raised the following points:

Objection from Property and Projects Team (Belfast City Council)

·        Concern over proposed bollards along the northern boundary in respect of ambiguity over private or public land and disputes over damage and maintenance of the boundary. Concern regarding the inadequate car parking provision, that the proposal was out of scale and was not in keeping with surrounding buildings. That the proposal had the potential to impact on the right to light of adjoining properties and that the proposed building had a direct view over adjacent play park and multi-use games area; 

Consultation response from Rivers Agency

·        Objection regarding the potential flooding issues which had not been dealt with as a Drainage Assessment had not been submitted; and

Email from Agent (received 10th April)

·        Requested a meeting to discuss the application prior to the Committee Meeting as the applicant was unhappy that the proposal had been dismissed with insufficient time to address the concerns raised.

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

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

1.     The proposal was contrary to policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 "Quality Residential Environments" and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement in that the proposal by reason of its design, scale, footprint and layout would, if permitted, result in overdevelopment of the site and cause unacceptable damage to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would fail to provide a quality and sustainable residential environment;

2.     The proposal was contrary to policy BH11 of Planning Policy Statement 11 “Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage” and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement, in that it would have an adverse impact on the setting of the B1 listed buildings including St. Mary Magdalene Church and 56-70 Donegall Pass by reason of its scale, height and massing;

3.     The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Access, Movement and Parking, Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Quality Residential Environments’, Policy TRAN 1 of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement, in that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a safe and convenient means of access and that adequate and appropriate provision for parking was available to meet the Department’s parking standards, thereby prejudicing the safety and convenience of road users;

4.     In the absence of a Drainage Assessment, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that adequate measures will be put in place to effectively mitigate the flood risk to the proposed development and from development elsewhere. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy FLD 3 of Planning Policy Statement 15 ‘Planning and Flooding’ and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland; and

5.     The proposal would fail to create a good standard of amenity for future occupiers of the apartments by reason of poor outlook and a lack of amenity space. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 “Quality Residential Environments, Creating Places and a core principle of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (2015) to improve health and well-being.

            He highlighted that the additional fifth reason for refusal had been added after the case officer’s report had been published.

            The Committee received representation from Ms. B. Neeson, acting on behalf of the applicant. She outlined a range of objections to the proposed refusal which related to the change in process, the speed of which the application had been processed and the lack of consistency with developments in the area in regards to car parking requirements. She suggested that the applicant had not been given sufficient time to address the issues raised such as potential for car parking spaces and a traffic survey. She suggested that the proposal could be amended to provide alternative aesthetics to the design of the proposal and that a bike dock could also be included. She requested that the Committee defer consideration of the application so that the applicant could meet with the Planning Officials to discuss the issues which had been raised in the case officer’s report.  She also suggested that they had been liaising with the Donegal Pass Regeneration Forum regarding the proposal but there hadn’t been a lot of time to complete any consultation with residents and time to complete this would be appreciated.

            The Committee refused the application for the reasons as set out in the case officer’s report.