Agenda item

            The case officer reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 11th September, before presentation of the application had commenced, the Committee had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken.

            The Chairperson reminded the Committee that, as the application had not been presented at the previous meeting, all Members present would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, three amended drawings had been received from the architect on 12th October, to illustrate the following changes:

·         Omission of lift access to fourth floor amenity area. It appeared that the lift shaft would remain internally with access as far as the 3rd floor;

·         Elevations amended – detailing and materials on the third floor amended (Slate tiling to mansard roof with standing seam zinc cladding to dormers over windows); and

·         Amendments to third floor window details. 

            She also advised that the following correspondence had been received from various political representatives:  

·         Email from Councillor Craig requesting a meeting between the applicant and the Planning Service following the scheduling of the application as a refusal;

·         Email from Claire Hanna MLA which sought information on the planning application; and

·         Letter of support from Paula Bradshaw MLA: Support for social housing, redevelopment of vacant site, adequate parking provision and no overshadowing. Letter also supported a meeting between the applicant and the Planning Service.

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

            She explained that, after assessment, the application had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that:

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the development would not, if permitted, respect the surrounding context and was inappropriate to the character of the site in terms of layout, excessive scale and massing and appearance of buildings;

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the design of the development did not draw upon the best local traditions of form, materials and detailing and an inadequate landscaping scheme had been provided which did not soften the visual impact of the development or assist integration with the surrounding area;

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the development would, if permitted, have an unacceptable adverse effect on the proposed property in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and poor outlook for potential residents;

·         The proposal was contrary to Policy LC1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 Addendum in that the pattern of development was not in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the area;

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy FLD 3 of Planning Policy Statement 15 in that the applicant had failed to submit information as requested to demonstrate that adequate measures would be put in place to effectively mitigate the flood risk to the development and from the development elsewhere; and

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy ATC 2 of Planning Policy Statement 6 Addendum as the proposed development did not maintain the overall character or respect the built form of the area.

            The Committee received a representation from Councillor Craig in objection to the case officer’s recommendation for refusal. He suggested that the current warehouse structure on site did not enhance the character of the area and the site was located close to a commercial area which led onto the Lisburn Road. He suggested that there was no consistency in the application of policy as a similar scheme had been approved on Windsor Road.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. T. Wilson, agent, representing the applicant. Mr. Wilson raised the following points of objection to the case officer’s recommendation for refusal:

·         Suggested scale and massing was not an issue;

·         The current building on the site was derelict and vacant;

·         Consideration should be given to context and surrounding commercial buildings;

·         The 4th storey was contained within the roof;

·         The drawings shown in the case officer’s presentation were not a true representation of the proposal;

·         The design was a horse shoe arrangement  and was on a sun path;

·         Refusal was unjustified as proposal would enhance the area from what’s currently on site;

·         Flooding issues and control of discharge had been dealt with in the application;

·         The proposal was intended for social housing for elderly persons; and

·         The proposal would maintain the character of the area.

            During points of clarification, Mr. Wilson explained the lift access to the fourth floor and suggested that the Planning Service had declined to meet with him to discuss their recommendation for refusal.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hussey, and

            Seconded by Alderman McGimpsey,

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the outstanding information, agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable clarification of the issues to be provided in an amended report at the next meeting.

On a vote by show of hands seven Members voted for the proposal and five against and it was declared carried.