Agenda item

(Councillor Lyons left the room during this application)

            The case officer reminded the Committee that it had agreed to defer consideration of the application at its meeting on 11th December, 2018, so that the Committee could undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site. 

            She outlined the principal aspects of the application to the Committee.  She explained that the site was within the development limits in both the extant and draft plans, was on unzoned land and was within the curtilage of an existing commercial use.

            The Committee was advised that Environmental Health had concluded that concerns relating to the potential noise, nuisance and disturbance could be dealt with through the attachment of conditions.  The case officer outlined that the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads had stated that it was content with the application

            She drew to the Committee’s attention the Late Items Pack, outlining that 129 letters of support for the application had been received since the report had been published.  She pointed out that the Planning Service had received seven further objections since the publication of the report, amounting to 53 written objections against the application.  No new information had been submitted from the applicant.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor McReynolds.  He outlined to the Committee a number of concerns he had with the application, principally:

·        the impact of an increased number of vehicles using the Sydenham Bypass and Garnerville Road;

·        the impact of increased congestion at the Tesco site, particularly with the removal of 96 car parking spaces to facilitate the restaurant;

·        there were a number of ongoing developments in the surrounding area, e.g. the proposed Park & Ride at Tillysburn and proposed works at the Blanchflower Stadium;

·        ongoing anti-social behaviour at the Tesco site;

·        he felt the time that the Committee undertook its site visit, on the first Wednesday after Christmas, was not representative of the issues at the site;

·        the proximity of the application to a nearby primary school; and

·        the proximity of the application to neighbouring houses.

            The Committee then received representation from Mr. J. King, Mr. I. Wilkinson and Mr. C. Lyttle MLA, who were objecting to the application.

            They outlined a number of concerns to the Committee for its consideration, including:

·        residents who lived close to the Tesco Knocknagoney Road site already experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) from young people congregating in the car park, and that the addition of a McDonald’s restaurant and drive-thru would only exacerbate those issues;

·        residents had only recently been advised to report issues relating to ASB to the Council’s Noise control section and to the PSNI in order that the occurrences could be logged and monitored, as residents had previously only reported the issues directly to Tesco;

·        concerns regarding blurred lines of responsibility between the companies if, for example, McDonalds customers were to park within the Tesco car park after it closed at 6pm on a Sunday;

·        queried how the Transport Assessment car park usage survey stated that the approval of the application would have a “negligible impact on traffic implications”, and queried comparisons of the area with small towns in England;

·        the development was inappropriate given its proximity to a nearby primary school, in that it went against policies to address childhood obesity and against the promotion of healthy eating, including:

¾          advice from the Department of Health, as published in its document “Making Life Better”; and

¾          aims within the Belfast Agenda.

            A Member advised the objectors that the Council did not have a Local Development Plan (LDP) in place yet and so, while he sympathised with some of the points which they had made, the Committee had to determine whether the application was valid in relation to existing planning policies.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. N. Hennessy, McDonald’s Franchisee Consultant, Mr. A. Mendelsohn, Highways Consultant, and Mr. M. Carpenter, agent for the application.

            Mr. Hennessy stated that McDonald’s had worked hard to address the concerns raised by objectors. 

            The representatives advised the Committee that:

·        the restaurant would close between 12 midnight and 6am;

·        PSNI had advised that there was little record of ASB at the site but that they had confirmed they would meet with residents to discuss issues;

·        McDonald’s would assist with discussions at a meeting involving the nearby residents who had raised concerns in relation to the existing Tesco site;

·        CCTV would be installed, as part of the application, in areas where there currently was none;

·        McDonald’s would share CCTV images with the PSNI if there were issues in the Tesco carpark overnight;

·        Draft Management and Crime Prevention Plans had been approved (in draft) by Environmental Health and were conditioned as part of an approval, where the plan would be required to be reviewed every 6 months; and

·        McDonald’s required its staff to carry out litter picks three times per day and that this included all litter in the area, not just McDonald’s waste;

·        there would be a net loss of 50 spaces (from 631 to 581) on the entire site, as McDonald’s would create spaces within its boundary;

·        in relation to the transport survey, the analysis showed that the vast majority of trips to McDonald’s restaurants located within Tesco carparks at peak times were undertaken by people visiting the Tesco store or who were on the local road network, hence why the predicted rise in any additional traffic was very low.

            In response to a number of queries raised by a Members in relation to the Traffic Survey results, the case officer advised the Committee that a representative from the Department for Infrastructure was in attendance.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. L. Walsh, Department for Infrastructure, to the meeting.

            A number of Members stated that the parking and traffic levels in the vicinity of the site were extremely high, so much so that Tesco had to employ traffic attendants during the busiest times of the year.

            In response to a number of Members’ queries regarding the results of the parking survey, he pointed out that the applicant submitted a traffic survey in respect of an application, as was common practice.   He confirmed to the Committee, however, that DfI was content with the results of the survey, in that he believed that it provided an accurate picture of the effects that the proposal would have on both the road network and the loss of 50 car parking spaces.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hussey, and

            Seconded by Councillor Johnston,

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding parking and the anti-social behaviour issues and the impact that they would have on the closet residential properties, does not grant approval to the application

            On a vote by show of hands five Members voted for the proposal and five against.  As there was an equality of votes, the Chairperson exercised his second and casting vote against the proposal and it was accordingly declared lost.

            The officer’s recommendation to approve the application was thereupon put to the Committee, when five Members voted in favour and five Members voted against.  As there was an equality of votes, the Chairperson exercised his second and casting vote for the proposal and it was accordingly declared carried.