Agenda item

            The case officer apprised the Committee of an application for 9 dwelling units, made up of 5 houses - 2 semi-detached pairs of houses and a detached house; and an apartment block consisting of 4 apartments; and site access and all associated works.

            He explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7, ‘Quality Residential Environments’ in that, if approved, the amenity of prospective residents would be adversely affected by noise and disturbance from road traffic noise.

            He advised that the application did not state that the proposal was for Social Housing, however the Northern Ireland Housing Executive supported the application and indicated there was a need for social housing in the area. He advised that the site plans had indicated that a noise acoustic barrier of 2.4m would be erected along the northern and southern boundary of the site.

            He highlighted that acoustic engineers ‘Lester Acoustics’ had suggested that extending the fence to also screen the gardens from traffic noise and Environmental Health remained concerned that ‘the noise levels within the outside garden space was extremely high and that potential mitigation to improve the external noise climate for families occupying these four bedroomed houses had not been adequately explored’.

            The Committee received representations from Councillor Beattie. He outlined a range of objections to the case officer’s recommendation for refusal. He suggested that the mitigation of noise outlined by the applicant included a pathway and a bushway could be sufficient for the development and that similar applications had previously been granted approval. He also suggested that there was a long waiting list for social housing in the area and building the development would assist with this, and also in reducing anti-social behaviour. He suggested that developing the site was crucial as the site was located at an interface.

            The Committee also received representation from Mr. T. Stokes, agent, representing the applicant, Mr. F. McCann, MLA, and Ms. C. Black, Grosvenor Community Centre.

            Mr. Stokes outlined a range of objections to the recommendation for refusal. He suggested that the development was for social housing and that the applicant had a great track record in the design and building of housing developments of this nature. He suggested there was a housing need in the area and the site was a vacant, derelict, brownfield site, which was currently an eyesore and attracted anti-social behaviour. He stated that the only consultee to raise objections had been Environmental Health and that the proposal included a range of noise mitigation levels such as a 2.4 metre barrier, and acoustic ventilation. He indicated that the internal noise levels would be desirable, however the external noise levels were slightly higher than recommended guidelines.

            In addition, Mr. McCann explained his objections to the recommendation and suggested that the area had high social deprivation, anti-social behaviour and high unemployment in the area. He advocated that the application should be approved due to the high demand for housing and the need for redevelopment of the site. He suggested that the proposal would enhance the area and pointed out that other similar sites had been developed with this type of housing.

            Ms. Black outlined a range of objections to the recommended for refusal which included the photos shown in the case officer’s report not being representative of the disorder at the site, which currently attracted anti-social behaviour. She suggested that the proposed development was supported by local residents and would improve the area.

            During discussion, Members clarified points raised by the deputation regarding the height of the fence, noise mitigation, air quality, amenities in the area, health and wellbeing of proposed residents, the window openings, and ventilation system.

            During further discussion, the Environmental Health Manager clarified his assessment of the proposal and stated that the submitted acoustic report had identified levels inside and outside of the dwellings which were in breach of the World Health Organisation Guidelines.  He also advised that the 5 dB relaxation of the levels within the British Standard for ‘necessary’ and ‘desirable’ development were only applicable once the best technical mitigation available had been exhausted.

            The case officer advised that it had not been demonstrated that a 2.4m high acoustic barrier would sufficiently mitigate noise levels. He informed the Committee that the barrier might need to be higher and this would be an operational development that might require a separate planning application.

            The Director of Planning and Place highlighted that the Committee must make its decision based on the information which had been provided.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Garrett, and

            Seconded by Councillor Magee,

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the noise mitigation, agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable the applicant to provide more information on noise levels and to clarify the proposed mitigation measures. The Committee also agrees to undertake a site visit to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand

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

Further Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Johnston, and

            Seconded by Councillor Hussey,

      That the Committee agrees to refuse the application for the reason as set out in the case officer’s report.

            On a vote by show of hands seven Members voted for the proposal and four against and it was declared carried.