Agenda item

(Councillor McAteer, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The Chairperson informed the Committee that a second request to speak had been received from Mr. D. Mullholland, an objector, citing exceptional circumstances and a new request had also been received from Mr. B. Warrington. The Committee agreed not to receive either of the deputations as it did not consider the circumstances to be exceptional.

The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 17th October, given the issues which had been raised regarding car parking, scale, massing and overdevelopment of the site, it had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Nicholl who outlined a range of objections to the case officer’s recommendation for approval. She suggested that the proposal had significant opposition from local residents which included difficulty in exiting the street in rush hour due to traffic and car queues, was out of character with the area and would overshadow the rest of the street. She inferred that the proposal would increase traffic by over 40 percent and suggested that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3, as it would be incompatible with access, movement and parking. She advised that consideration should be also given to the impact the proposal might have on car parking and traffic of the surrounding streets. She explained that access was already difficult for large vehicles, such as bin lorries, and the site was not ideal for heavier traffic. She suggested that the proposal would be ten times the size of any other building in the street, it would comprise 10 percent of the total land in the street but would house over thirty percent of the total number of residents in the street.

She stated that the proposal was contrary to PPS 11 – planning waste management as it would increase the risk of flooding. She advised that residents were concerned that the development would introduce a security risk for children playing, a loss of privacy, impact on the Townscape character and reduce property values, for those reasons, she suggested that the Committee should refuse the application.

The case officer provided an overview of the report. During points of clarification, the case officer confirmed that Transport NI had been satisfied with the application and confirmed that adequate access had been proposed.

            Proposal

            Moved by Councillor McDonough-Brown and

            Seconded by Councillor Armitage,

That the Committee, agrees to refuse the application on the grounds that it does not meet Policy AMP 2 - Access to Public Roads, as outlined in Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking, in that the proposal would prejudice road safety and significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic, together with the nature and scale of the development which would negatively impact the residents.

            On a vote by show of hands 6 Members voted for the proposal and 5 against and it was declared carried.