Agenda item

            The case officer outlined the proposal and advised the Committee that an application for Listed Building Consent had also been submitted alongside this full application (LA04/2017/0492/LBC).

            She confirmed that the Church on the site would be repaired and weather proofed by the applicant but a new Planning Application would be required for its future usage.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. M. O’Reilly, representing residents. He outlined the following points of objection to the application.

·        The density of the proposal was not reflective of the surrounding area and sought to introduce a development of a significantly higher density than that of the receiving environment;

·        The site plots were not comparable with that of the existing area;

·        The proposal was contrary to PPS7 - LC1;

·        The Committee was not bound by previous decisions that had been made by the Planning Section of the Department of Environment;

·        In relation to drawing 68 (stamped 6th July, 2017) on the Planning Portal – the separation distances of plot 16 and 17, outlined in the drawing, were incorrect, and fell short of the direction as outlined in Creating Places Design Guidance;

·        The site levels were incorrect and topographical levels had not been reflected in the layout or the case officer’s report;

·        No information seemed available on the Planning Portal in relation to cross sections and levels surrounding the relationship between plot 16 and 17 and the existing property;

·        The dominant height of the proposal would cause overlooking and loss of light;

·        Drawing 68A, as outlined in the case officer’s report, was not available on the Planning Portal; and

·        Suggested that the application should be deferred so that clarity could be given on the issues he had raised.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. T. Brownlie, Mr. M. Nugent, and Mr. J. Casey, representing the applicant. In relation to the objector’s comments, they pointed out that the development was not higher in density than the surrounding area and was zoned for housing in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. They confirmed that previous planning permission had been granted for 33 dwelling on the site and this application proposed 25 housing units with a better layout. They suggested that the application had been correctly assessed by the case officer under PPS 7. In relation to plot size, they stated that there was a variation in size and range of house types, all within PPS 7 requirements and planning policy. They suggested that all relevant drawings had been submitted and explained that as the site rises in places, the boundary distances varied and there were also a range of heights. They suggested that the proposal was not dominant, would not overlook or damage the existing properties, would develop a derelict site and also protect a grade 1 listed building for future development.

            During discussion the case officer confirmed the variation in ground levels and advised that all drawings should be accessible on the Planning Portal. She informed the Committee that after the Impact Assessment, amendments to the design had been made in relation to the rear of the existing buildings. She also confirmed that the maintenance of foliage would be subject to condition.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of the conditions.