Agenda item

            The Committee agreed to deal with the applications together, however, noted that separate decisions were required for each of the applications, and that deputations who wished to speak had been allocated double the standard allocated time to make their representations.

 

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that a late request to speak had been received from Councillor McCusker. Accordingly, the Committee agreed that he could make representation regarding the applications.

 

            The case officer presented the aforementioned application - LA04/2016/2360/F, followed by the second application relating to the same retail park - LA04/2017/0361/F.

             

            He informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, an additional 5 objections had been received regarding LA04/2016/2360/F and LA04/2017/0361/F, together with a petition, which raised the following points:

 

·        the site was an opportunity to address housing inequality in North Belfast;

·        Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 required due regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity;

·        the district centre status of the site in BMAP was of declining influence. The site had been vacant for 10 years and the district centre use was not needed;

·        approving the application would use up limited space required for housing and to tackle housing inequality in North Belfast. The Planning Committee had stated there was a need to address housing need through the emerging Local Plan;

·        requested copies of the equality screening template, and any other records kept of compliance with the statutory equality duty, in relation to the work which had been undertaken under the Council’s functions in relation to processing, consideration and recommendations on the two Hillview planning applications;

·        raised concerns regarding the Council’s obligation to fulfil human rights and equality obligations, and not discriminate on grounds of religious belief or political opinion and compliance with the Section 75 Equality Duty;

·        the adverse impact on existing retailing in the locality; and

·        clarification had been sought on question 25 of the planning application form (average no. of vehicles/ persons attending premises daily); and

·        suggested that a transport assessment form should be required.

 

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack. He highlighted that the proposal for consideration was for a retail development and the site was zoned as a District Centre in BMAP.  

 

            The Committee received representations from Councillors Collins, Clarke, McCabe, Campbell and McCusker. They outlined a range of objections to the case officer’s recommendation for approval, as follows:

 

·        zoning of housing in North Belfast;

·        support and need for social housing in North Belfast and cases of homelessness in the area;

·        procedural flaws regarding use of the relevant plan (BUAP and BMAP) and that the BUAP shouldn’t’ be discounted;

·        application and policy flaws;

·        that there was no mention of asbestos in the case officer’s report;

·        the development would prejudice discussions with NIHE;

·        potential of vesting the land for social housing;

·        oppose the development on behalf of local residents;

·        the previous retail outlet had been a failed venture;

·        cross community work and consultation was needed on what form the site should take and the need for community to be on board

·        questioned if the meeting date had been changed;

·        suggested that not enough consideration had been given to 6.270 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statements (SPPS) regarding support and vibrancy of town centres;

·        questioned the lawful use of the site;

·        lack of communication throughout the process; and

·        clarification on the case officer’s comments in relation to aspects of the application that did not require planning permission.

 

            During points of clarification, the Director reminded Members of the Committee cycle and the dates which had been published in relation to the August Committee.      

            After the deputation had spoken, one Member asked for clarification from the City Solicitor regarding evidence of a housing application for the site. The City Solicitor confirmed that there was currently no evidence to suggest interest from a Statutory Body in vesting of the site, therefore, it could not be a material consideration in the context of the application.

 

            The Committee also received representation from Ms. G. Owens (resident), Ms. C. Ní Chuilín MLA, and Mr. S. Brady (representing Participation and the Practice of Rights) who outlined a range of objections to the proposals.

 

            Ms. Owens suggested that her current social housing accommodation in North Belfast was inadequate and was causing her family ill health. She suggested there was a need for housing in the area, and the Equality Campaign that she was involved with had delivered a petition to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of Communities in this regard. She suggested that the site would be one of the last places that families like hers could have any hope of a home and the Committee should refuse the application.

 

            Ms. NíChuilín MLA suggested that there was concern from various equality campaigners that the application site had been designated for retail only use. She suggested that a full Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) was needed regarding the proposal and failure to do so would be contrary to the spirit of Section 75. She raised concerns regarding the consultation that had taken place by the developers, the low quality of drawings and the design of the proposal. She suggested that there were opportunities on this site for mixed use, to provide employment but also social housing. 

 

            Mr. Brady outlined his objections to the proposal which included flaws in the Planning policy and procedures, and the complaints process. He suggested that he had been given the wrong date of the Planning Committee by a Council Official. He suggested that the Chief Executive of the Housing Executive had written to families in 2014, detailing that she had wished, at the time, to build homes on the site. He also suggested that a Housing Association had also brought forward an application to the Housing Executive for homes on the site in 2014. He suggested that the campaign against the proposals had drawn upon the support of 5 Political Parties and represented thousands of constituents in need. He suggested that they had carried out their own consultation forums across North Belfast and had designed a better, alternative plan for the site. He suggested that the Committee should vote on the needs of the community and refuse both applications.  

 

            The City Solicitor advised that policies that underpin Planning had been taken through the EQIA process, such as the SPSS and the Planning Statements, BMAP and the BUAP, which was what had been required in terms of legal compliance.

 

            During points of clarification, the objecting deputation provided further information regarding their objections to both applications; problems with the consultation and planning process; the potential of Council vesting the land; and reiterated their suggestion for an EQIA for the applications.

 

            The City Solicitor reminded the Committee that the site was owned by a private third party and was not under public authority ownership, therefore, it would be treated differently in terms of equality screening.

 

            The Committee received representation from Mr. T. Stokes (TSA Planning, Planning Agent) and Mr. S. Beattie QC (representing the applicant) who outlined a range of support for the case officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

            Mr. Stokes provided an overview of the Planning History of the site and suggested that BMAP had zoned the site as a district centre and it was an existing, unrestricted, open class A1 retail park. He suggested that there had been strong interest from retailers, and complimentary café/restaurant/drive thru’s which would help the performance of the District Centre. He suggested that the smaller application was submitted to advance discussions with a specific interested retailer and speed up the application process.  He suggested it was a commercial application which aimed at bringing the Retail Park back into use, and strengthen the future performance of the designated District Centre. He acknowledged that there was a need for Social Housing in the area, however, suggested that there was no policy basis for refusing permission for the current proposals based on this need.

 

            Mr. Beattie QC provided background regarding the outcome of the Judicial Review and court of appeal regarding the relevance of the draft BMAP and the statutory BUAP. He explained his support for the application as follows:

 

·        in BMAP, the site had been zoned as a District Centre, and in the BUAP it had been zoned a Whiteland;

·        the guiding principle under the SPPS was that there was a presumption in favour of development for a proposal which was consistent with the up to date plan (e.g. BMAP);

·        considerable weight should be given to the draft BMAP and there had been no objection to the designation of this site as a District Centre;

·        there were no policy presumptions against this development under the BUAP’s zoning of whiteland of the site either;

·        no statutory agency had objected to BMAP, therefore it should get considerable weight in planning decisions;

·        planning policies raised by the objectors had not counter balanced the presumption in favour of development for a proposal which was consistent with either of the area plans;

·        there had been no proposals from NIHE for this site, and it was not the fault of the Council or the Developer;

·        the proposition to refuse the application to facilitate the vesting process, would be an illegal, inappropriate and improper motive;

 

            In relation to the objectors’ comments, Mr. Beattie suggested SPSS 2.670 did not displace the presumption in favour of development; the equality legislation issues raised by objectors had been raised in the process of BMAP and that his client also had rights under the prevailing policies and that the proposal was policy compliant, lawful, and should be approved.

 

            During points of clarification, the deputation supporting the applications provided further information and suggested there was no policy requirement for a Section 76 agreement, a housing proposal at the site would be inconsistent with policy, and there had been no discussions regarding social housing because of the zoning of the site. Mr. Beattie also suggested that business sustainability of the proposed retail park was not a material consideration for the applications and that the District Centre designation was at a higher level of protection from local centres, as within BMAP policy, whereas town centres had a separate policy that protected them.

 

            After the deputations had concluded, the Development Engagement Manager advised that there was nothing to prevent the occupation of existing site as retail units. He advised that the issue of asbestos had been dealt with in the report and Environmental Health had no objections. He reminded Members that they should determine the application on material considerations and that a Local Development Plan that was being prepared was the forum for addressing issues such as housing need. 

 

Proposal

 

            Moved by Councillor Magee, and

            Seconded by Councillor McAteer,

 

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the housing need and equality, in regards to applications LA04/2016/2360/F and LA04/2017/0361/F, agrees to defer consideration of the applications to permit a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand, together with information from officers to be provided on the requirement for an equality impact assessment. 

 

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

 

Application LA04/2016/2360/F

Proposal

 

            Moved by Councillor Bunting, and

            Seconded by Alderman McGimpsey,

 

      That the Committee, agrees to grant approval to the LA04/2016/2360/F application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report.

 

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

 

Application LA04/2017/0361/F

Proposal

 

            Moved by Councillor Bunting, and

            Seconded by Alderman McGimpsey,

 

      That the Committee, agrees to grant approval to the LA04/2017/0361/F application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report.

 

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