Agenda item

            (Councillor Hutchinson took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the applications since he had not been in attendance at the meeting on 14th August when it had originally been considered.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 14th August, 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 proposals at first hand.

            The case officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted that, in respect of clarification over the ownership of the pillar to be re-located, Transport NI had provided confirmation that Diamond Avenue had been adopted by Transport NI in 1973 through re-organisation and had provided a map which illustrated the location of the pillar within its control.

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

·        A query in relation to the specific time the case officer’s report would be published on the Council’s website; and 

·        Clarification of adding conditions to applications recommended for approval.

            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 also pointed out that three additional conditions had been outlined in the addendum report to safeguard the privacy of adjacent properties.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. J. McVeigh, resident, in objection to the application. He suggested that the conditions of the recommended approval had not been mandated and should be considered carefully by the Committee. He suggested that the development would be out of character with the local area, there had been a lack of consultation between residents and the developer and the updated design would not be an improvement on the first proposal. He suggested that trees had been removed to increase the likelihood that the application would be approved and the land on which they were situated had been obtained through adverse possession. He highlighted that objections had also been raised in relation to the nature of the area and traffic concerns had not been considered fully by the Planning Service.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. C. McAuley, agent, representing the applicant. He suggested that the pattern of development in the area was characterised by pockets of urban back-land developments, in the rear gardens fronting on to Diamond Gardens. He suggested that the proposal complied with the LC1addendum to PPS 7 and the adjoining dwellings were safeguarded through appropriate design, orientation and separation distances. He suggested the road widening and proposed landscaping scheme, which would replace the current hedge, would assist with the safety of the entrance, the exiting parking would be maintained and they had no objections to the additional conditions outlined in the case officer’s addendum report.

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

(Councillor Hutchinson returned to the Committee table at this point.)