Agenda item

            (Alderman McGimpsey and Councillors Bunting and Carson took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 20th June when it had originally been considered).

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

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 20th June, given the issues which had been raised regarding car parking and the impact on residential amenity, it had agreed to defer consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The case officer pointed out that, at its meeting on 20th June, the Committee had received a case officer’s report with a recommendation to approve the proposal (copy available here) and since then, further objections had been received from residents regarding car parking and anti-social behaviour. She advised that reassessment of the proposal had taken place and had taken account of the issues which had been raised by objectors and by Members of the Planning Committee.

            She highlighted that having re-assessed the impact on neighbouring residents, as outlined in the report, it was recommended that the application was refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal was contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) and Development Control Advice Note 4 'Restaurants, Cafes and Fast Food Outlets' in that the use would, if permitted, harm the living conditions of neighbouring residential properties through odours, noise, nuisance, and general disturbance resulting in a detrimental impact on residential amenity;

2. The proposal was contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland in that, if permitted, would create conflict with adjacent land uses in respect of over dominance, loss of light, and overshadowing; and

3. The proposal was contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland, in that it would, if permitted, cause unacceptable damage to the character of the area due to the uncharacteristic design, scale and mass of the proposal.

            The Committee received representations from Mrs. C. Webb and Mr. J. Webb. They outlined a range of objections to the proposal which included the impact on parking, the lack of consultation by the developer, the scale of the building, and the impact the proposal would have on residents and their family life.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. P. Morgan, agent, representing the applicant. He indicated that he was concerned that residents had spoken with Councillors who had attended the site visit and questioned the procedure of site visits. He raised concerns regarding the reversal of the case officer’s recommendation and suggested that the overshadowing which had been outlined in the report was not an issue as the height of the proposal was not excessive. He pointed out that an acoustic study had been carried out which detailed construction measures to protect the residential amenity of the neighbouring property and questioned why no explanation had been given by the Planning Department to the change in opinion of this issue. He highlighted that Environmental Health had no objection to the proposal and odour emissions measures had also been agreed. He clarified that the application was for a coffee shop not for a hot-food takeaway, and suggested that food odours would be minimal. He questioned why the reasons for refusal had been acceptable in the initial case officer’s report but had now been reversed by the Planning Department. He stated that he had attempted to contact the Planning Office regarding the change in recommendation but had not been given the opportunity to respond. He suggested that the building had a history of commercial consent and had been vacant for 10 - 12 years. He suggested that the acoustic report carried out at the property had referenced a noise level of 61 Db, therefore, the site was not suitable for residential use. He also stated that Transport NI did not have any objection to the proposal. 

            The Divisional Solicitor reminded the Committee that the operating protocol was clear, in that Members of the Committee were not allowed to engage with applicants and objectors at site visits. She advised Members that if there had been engagement with members of the public at the site visit, then they should not take part in determining the outcome of the application. The planning officer also advised that, at the site visit, it was made clear to residents of the purpose of the site visit and it had been explained that applicants or objectors could not take part or enter into discussion with the Members present.

            During discussion, one Member questioned how the change in the case officer’s recommendation had been arrived at. The case officer advised that, after issues had been raised by the Committee and objectors at the Committee in June, further consideration had been given to the potential conditions of the approval to assess if they would be reasonable, measurable and enforceable. She advised that the outcome of the review had raised significant impact to the neighbouring properties and that the previous conditions would have been very difficult to meet.  The Director clarified that the officers had listened to the debate, benefited from the subsequent site visit, and considered it appropriate to alter the recommendation to refusal.

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

(Alderman McGimpsey, Councillors Carson and Dorrian returned to the Committee table at this point.)