Agenda item

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, new and amended information had been submitted by the agent to address issues raised in the planning report, as follows:

·        Revised front and side elevations to address massing;

·        Revised amenity space arrangements including additional space provision via balconies for more apartments;

·        Revised elevations to reduce overlooking;

·        Shadow study submitted to demonstrate overshadowing impact is acceptable;

·        In relation to transport issues: The parking provision was comparable to other city centre apartments, the site was in close proximity to public transport; coach parking had already been reduced by the provision of a cycle lane; and

·        In relation to drainage, the request for additional information was disproportionate and unnecessary as Northern Ireland Water confirmed that the storm water could be discharged to a combined sewer and further approval would also be required under separate legislation.  

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack. 

The case officer provided an overview of the application and explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the following grounds:

1. The proposal was contrary to Policy BH12 of Planning Policy Statement 6 Planning Archaeology, and the Built Heritage, and Policy QD1 of the Department's Planning Policy Statement 7: “Quality Residential Environments”, in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in overdevelopment of the site due to its inappropriate layout, scale, form, massing and design causing harm to the character and appearance of the City Centre Conservation Area;

2. The proposal was contrary to Policy QD1 of the Department's Planning Policy Statement 7: "Quality Residential Environments" and Policy OS2 of Planning Policy Statement 8: ”Open Space, Sport and Recreation”, in that it would, if permitted, result in overdevelopment of the site in that it would be harmful to the living conditions of existing residents through overlooking, dominance, and overshadowing resulting in a loss of residential amenity due to inappropriate scale, massing and design. The proposal also failed to provide adequate amenity space for prospective residents. The proposed development would therefore fail to create a quality residential environment;

3. The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, movement and parking; Policy AMP2, Access to Public Roads, in that the applicant had not demonstrated an acceptable vehicular access for vehicles that would be attracted to the development;

4. The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, movement and parking; Policy AMP7, Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements, in that the applicant had not demonstrated acceptable parking arrangements for vehicles that would be attracted to the development; and

5. The proposal was contrary to Policy FLD 3 of the Department's Planning Policy Statement 15: "Planning and Flood Risk", in that it had not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide satisfactory measures for the mitigation of flood risk and in particular drainage.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. M. Gordon and Mr. M. Martin in objection to the case officer’s recommendation for refusal. Mr. Gordon suggested that the proposal had the support from the local Residents Association and that the technical issues raised by the case officer were easily resolved. He suggested that a site visit would be beneficial for the Committee. He indicated that NI Water had confirmed that a combined sewer could be used to discharge storm water and a planning condition could be attached to the approval in relation to this. He suggested that Transport NI had an issue with the absence of a parking survey and the loss of a coach space; however, parking provision had been included for 25 car parking spaces in the scheme, and the site was very accessible to public transport and the principle of losing coach spaces had already been established through the provision of a cycle lane. In terms of the design, he suggested that the height of the proposal was in line with office building heights in the area and the development should be assessed within the context of the whole surrounding area, not just the conservation area. He suggested that a small adjustment to the plans had been submitted which illustrated the provision of amenity space at the back of the development. 

            The Committee refused the application for the reasons as set out in the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of the refusal.