Agenda item

            The case officer provided the Committee with an overview of the report.

            He advised the Committee that there was an error in one section of the case officer’s report relating to the location of the site and he confirmed that the site was bounded by Library Street and Little Donegall Street to the sides and Union Street to the rear. 

            The Committee was advised that the application sought renewal of a previously approved scheme from 2011. 

            He explained to the Members that the main issues which had been considered were:

·        the principle of the use in this location;

·        impact on the listed building;

·        impact on the character of the area;

·        impact on residential amenity; and

·        traffic and parking; and

·        drainage/flooding.

            He outlined to the Members that Policy FLD3 of PPS15 required the application to be accompanied by a drainage assessment and that the Committee was requested to delegate authority to resolve this outstanding issue with the Rivers Agency.

            The Committee was advised that no consultees had lodged objections to the application, with one representation having been received raising concerns including loss of historic fabric/buildings and insufficient consideration of PPS6 in the design and access statement.

            He outlined that there had been no change in policy considerations in relation to Listed Buildings and that the requirements of PPS6, BH7 and BH8 were deemed to be met.

            During discussion, Members raised concerns in relation to the size of the proposed amenity space, by way of an internal atrium, and the size of the apartments. 

            In response, the case officer reminded the Committee that, while space standards for accommodation did not apply to city centre applications, the size of the apartments did, in fact, exceed space guidelines for two bedroom/four person apartments. 

            A number of Members expressed concerns regarding restricted daylight in the six apartments which would be located centrally in the building, and which would have no direct outlook to the public street. 

            In response to a Member’s question, the case officer confirmed that no technical tests had been carried out to determine the amount of light which would be available to the six central apartments.

            He explained that, while the amenity space was small, the arrangements had been considered acceptable under the previous application, and, as there had not been a change in policy in relation to those aspects, that, on balance, the history outweighed the concerns stated.  

            A Member stated that they would have liked to have seen the original Listing description as had been made available to the Special Committee for the Listed Building Consent application for Bank Buildings.

            The case officer advised that, on balance, the application had been considered acceptable.

            The Development Engagement Manager sought to clarify that the Committee’s concerns about the proposal related to the substandard level of amenity that would be afforded to the central apartments due to poor outlook and lack of day light, and the substandard level of private amenity space. He also advised the Committee that, as the drainage issues had not been resolved to date, that would be a further potential ground for refusal.

            The recommendation to approve the application was then put to the Committee when two Members voted in favour and eight against and it was declared lost.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Johnston,

            Seconded by Councillor Carson and

      Resolved – that the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable potential reasons for refusal to be outlined for consideration in an amended report at the next meeting.