Agenda item

The case officer provided an overview of the proposal for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of 22 apartments with associated landscaping, car parking and a new vehicular access to Malone Avenue along with the construction of a new gable wall to the rear of 18 Windsor Avenue. She advised that there was an associated Conservation Area consent application for the demolition works under reference LA04/2017/0044/DCA.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, 10 additional letters of objection had been received, resulting in a total of 155.

This included a letter from Malone Residents’ Association which outlined concerns with the planning application proceeding to the Committee meeting, and a letter of opposition received from Paula Bradshaw MLA. She advised that the following points of objection had been raised in relation to the proposal: 

·        It would be a gross overdevelopment;

·        The proposal did not respect the architectural style, scale, existing densities or pattern of development;

·        It would cause harm to the residential amenity;

·        Issues regarding parking, bin storage, access for deliveries, maintenance, emergency vehicles had not been addressed;

·        Previous planning permission for the replacement Church should not set a precedent for approval of a residential scheme of a similar scale;

·        The site could comfortably accommodate pairs of semi-detached houses.

·        There had been a lack of transparency, in that details of meetings with the applicant had not been made public via the planning portal, resulting in grave concerns that the applicant might have had undue influence on the process;

·        Disregard for process and undue haste, in that the recommendation had been formed before the neighbourhood consultation period had ended, with an application going before the Planning Committee a mere 20 working days after the original neighbour notification letters had been issued;

·        Contravention of clear and established planning policy which the planning officer had chosen to disregard;

·        No site on Malone Avenue has had a building of this height, width or depth;

·        Development was not consistent with the surrounding mass, scale or pattern of development;

·        Previous planning approvals required the development to step down to the east and to the west to match exactly the ridge height of the adjacent buildings and building lines – this had been completely disregarded; 

·        It would add to existing parking issues in Malone Avenue, as well as adding to the existing traffic issues in the Lisburn Road area; and

·        Concern over the amount of apartment blocks which would change the atmosphere for those living in Malone Avenue.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack, and highlighted that the office meeting referred to in the objectors’ correspondence had been conducted in an open and transparent manner.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. J. Stinson, representing Lower Malone Residents Association, in objection to the application. He advised that the site was within the Malone Conservation Area and suggested that the scale and density of the proposal would be detrimental to the area, especially the 12 semi-detached houses situated opposite the proposed development. He indicated that residents had raised numerous objections and had highlighted the breaches in Planning Policy. He suggested that the development proposed a ridge line which would be 4 metres higher than the adjacent and facing properties and, if approved, would dwarf the existing dwellings.  He indicated that the previous planning history on the site had respected the ridge height of the existing properties. He suggested that the Malone Avenue had a consistent building line, however, the development would be out of sync with the surrounding buildings, sitting 1 metre forward from the exiting building line. He also suggested that the proposal was contrary to PPS 7 – QD1, in that it was not consistent with the prevailing character or surrounding environment. He advised that residents were concerned in relation to the speed of which the application had been processed and suggested that the application should be refused.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Craig who outlined a range of support to the case officer’s recommendation for approval. He suggested that the proposal would benefit the residents of South Belfast. He advised that the development would help fund a new church building, at an alternative site, which was required due to growth of the congregation. He suggested that the applicant planned to redevelop a derelict art-deco building on the Lisburn Road, therefore, would help protect Belfast’s Built Heritage. 

            The Committee received representation from Mr. T. Stokes, agent, and Mr. J. McCormick, applicant. Mr. Stokes suggested that the development was intrinsically linked to the financing and delivery of the New Windsor Baptist Church and would assist the future provision of a wide range of community services and projects at the former Majestic Cinema Site on the Lisburn Road, which had received Planning approval in August.  He advised that the Church had grown significantly, along with the services it provided, including cross community initiatives. He pointed out the previous planning approval on the site for a larger church remained live, however, the church had continued to expand and required a larger property to suit its needs.  He advised that a community consultation meeting had taken place on 17th November, 2016, together with a pre application discussions with the Planning Department. He suggested that the design had been amended accordingly, such as a reduction in size, the change to the building line and stepping down of the apartment block. In relation to the material contribution of the existing church, he stated that demolition consent had already been granted and there had been no change to Planning Policy since then. He suggested that the proposal would remove the unsightly portable cabin and unattractive views of the rundown building to the rear of the site and would improve the Conservation Area. In relation to the objector’s comments, he suggested that the design was in line with the character of the area, as the prevailing character of the area was of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) properties and apartment conversions. He also suggested that the proposal was situated in a highly sustainable location on a brownfield site and the proposal was sympathetic of the Malone Conservation Area. He stated that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and endorsed the Planners recommendation to approve the application.  

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor McAteer and

            Seconded by Councillor McDonough-Brown,

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the Malone Conservation Area, the height of the proposal and impact on local residents, 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.

            On a vote by show of hands nine Members voted for the proposal and none against and it was declared carried.