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.)

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

            The Case officer outlined the application for a residential dwelling on lands to the rear of 49 Diamond Gardens including new access, bicycle shelter and bin storage.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following points of objection had been received from Mr. J. McVeigh:

•        Requested the delay of the presentation to the Planning Committee to allow time for the objectors’ Planning Consultant to respond to an email from Planning in response to an email from Mr McVeigh dated 11th July;

•        It was unclear what conditions had been included by Planning Service - this information had not been provided and Mr. McVeigh had been unable to locate it on the Planning Portal;

•        It was unreasonable to rush this planning application through the Planning Committee given the level of effort that had been put into it by concerned local residents and also considering it had previously been earmarked for refusal;

•        Given the late response received from Planning Service to an email dated 11th July, it was only fair and reasonable to delay a decision on this application until the next month;

•        If this application was considered to the Planning Committee, local residents would feel let down by the Planning Service; and

•        There were no conditions in the case officer’s report regarding the proposed movement of the pillars.

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

            Councillor McAteer indicated that she wished to speak in objection to the proposal and accordingly, the Committee agreed. She suggested that the area had a rural feel and there were currently three houses on the laneway and raised concerns in relation to vehicle movement and the heritage value and ownership of the gate posts at the entry of the lane. She suggested that the separation distances between the proposal and the existing houses was minimal and a site visit would be beneficial for the Committee to assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding houses.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. J. Cassidy, agent, representing the applicant. He advised that this was a revised application to consider issues which had been raised by the Planning Service and residents. He suggested that concerns in relation to the existing road junction with Diamond Gardens had been taken into consideration and the proposal addressed this as it would widen the existing carriageway, relocate one of the existing gate posts, remove the existing hedge and replant a new one. He suggested that the gate posts were on Transport NI land and had been built without its knowledge or approval, however, the proposal would move one of them outside the increased width of carriageway. 

            After discussion, the Committee, given the issues which had been raised in relation to the ownership of the gate post and width of the laneway, agreed to defer consideration of the application to permit a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand. The Committee also agreed that further information from the applicant in relation to ownership of the gate post be submitted for the Planning Service for consideration.

(Councillors Hutchinson and McAteer returned to the Committee table at this point.)