Agenda item

            (Councillor Nicholl declared an interest in the item in that she had assisted residents with an objection to the application and advised the Committee that she would be speaking against it.  She left the room while the Committee considered the application.)

            The case officer reminded the Committee that it had deferred consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit to allow Members to acquaint themselves with the location and the proposals at first hand.  She explained that a visit to the site had initially been attended by Members on 1st August but that they had been unable to gain access on that date.  A site visit for Members took place on 8th August.

            She provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application for 10 semi-detached and 4 detached dwellings, garages, associated car parking and a pumping station. 

            The Committee was advised that, under the adopted Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001, the site was unzoned white land and, under both the current draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (dBMAP) 2015 and the 2004 version, a portion of the site fell within the proposed Finaghy Area of Townscape Character.  The case officer explained that the proposed land use for housing was considered acceptable in principle, providing that it was compatible with all other relevant planning policy.

            She advised the Committee that the proposed layout of the development was deemed acceptable and it was considered that the site could accommodate the proposed number of dwellings of the scale and mass proposed, without detrimentally impacting on the residential amenity of existing neighbours.  She added that the proposals met all space standards and that in-curtilage parking was provided for each dwelling, in addition to 8 visitor parking spaces. 

            In relation to the proposed amenity space for each dwelling, the case officer outlined that each of the proposed dwellings exceeded the minimum requirement of 40m², with 13 out of the 14 dwellings exceeding the recommended 70m² as set out in Creating Places.

            The case officer advised that an office meeting with residents, facilitated by Councillor Nicholl, had taken place on 30th July.  She explained that a number of issues were discussed with the residents, including information relating to traffic, the sewerage system and the scale of the development.  The case officer confirmed that no requests for Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) had been recorded for the site in the past 12 years.

            She advised the Committee that NI Water and Environmental Health had both requested additional information in relation to the proposed pumping station and, having since received the information, had confirmed that they were content.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Nicholl, who wished to address the Committee on behalf of some nearby residents.  Councillor Nicholl thanked the officers for the informative residents’ meeting which had been held on 30th July, where the majority of their concerns had been addressed.  

            She explained that the residents which she was representing were not against any development taking place at the site and that they appreciated that development of the site could enhance the area and increase the value of their homes.  She advised the Members that, for the most part, the residents were content with the design and quality of the current proposals but that they wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t negatively impact their homes and the surrounding area.  She explained that some residents had outstanding concerns, including the DfI Roads Traffic report, queries relating to which large trees were going to be removed as there was a risk of subsidence and concerns regarding the possible spread of Japanese knotweed.  Additionally, she explained that NI Transport Holding Company had not responded as a statutory consultee and she requested that the Committee would consider deferring consideration of the application to allow a meeting with the Company to take place regarding a query over land ownership.

            The Committee then welcomed Mr. D. Donaldson, the agent, to the meeting. 

He explained that the proposed development was a significant investment for a local company with a proven track record in high quality development.  He explained that permission was urgently required in order to maintain continuity of employment for its workforce.

            He pointed out that the report listed that 68 objections had been received, but he explained that the majority of the objections had been submitted from six addresses, with 23 of the objections from the same address.  He added that 80% of the addresses in Finaghy Park Central had not objected to the proposals. 

            He explained that a letter of support had been submitted from a nearby resident, outlining that the application was reasonable in scale, and that approval of the proposal would remove the uncertainties relating to the property prices in the area and what would eventually be constructed on the site.

            Whilst he confirmed that the concerns from residents in relation to traffic were noted and were important, Mr Donaldson explained that paragraph 5.72 of SPPS stated that planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. Given that BMAP had been quashed by the High Court, he pointed out that the BUAP 2001 was the statutory plan and it contained no designated plans for this site.  He advised that DFI Roads had accepted that safe access had been achieved and that Finaghy Park Central could accommodate the development.

            He explained that the proposed plans had taken into account that Finaghy Park Central was an established suburban area, providing 14 family homes of various sizes and thereby contributing to the Belfast Agenda targets.  He advised that it was not a high density site and that one dwelling had in fact been removed from the original plans following consultation with the planning service.

            In response to a Member’s question, the case officer explained that NI Water had confirmed that there was capacity in current system and that the foul pumping station will be maintained and adopted by NI Water.

(Councillor Nicholl left the room at this point)

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that Mr. G. Lawther from DfI Roads was in attendance and he was welcomed to the meeting.  A Member queried the Cumulative impact of a number of developments having been approved in the wider area, and whether DfI Roads had taken account of the impact on the wider traffic network.  In response, Mr. Lawther explained that the predicted traffic volume for the site was approximately 100 vehicles per day, which would not be detrimental to the traffic volume or the risk of accidents in Finaghy Park Central.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding the site density, the case officer confirmed to the Committee that the application would not lift the density of the area to an unacceptable level.

            A Member expressed concern that no response had been received from NI Railways/Transport Holding Company and suggested that the Committee should write to NI Transport Holding Company asking it to confirm its position on the application.  The case officer explained that the red line application did not encroach onto the railway and she advised the Members that the company only engaged with applications which were of interest to it and that the application had been with the Planning Service for 18 months.  She confirmed to the Committee that a consultation, and reminders, had been sent to the company regarding the application and that no response had been received, which indicated that they had no significant interest.

            During discussion, a number of Members raised queries regarding land ownership and over possible subsidence if trees were to be removed.  The case officer explained that the inner line of trees on the site could be removed at any time as they were within the ownership of the applicant and they were not protected.  She highlighted that the stability of the land on the bank during construction was a civil matter and that officers had recommended a construction management plan as part of the recommended approval.  The Committee was advised that, as the agent was in attendance, he could perhaps clarify the extent of the applicant’s ownership.

            In response to a request by the Chairperson, Mr. Donaldson confirmed to the Committee that the applicant owned everything within the red line of the application.  He stated that he was confident that they could develop the site within their ownership satisfactorily without impacting on the railway or the bank.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that it could determine that the application be approved with the caveat that officers would obtain clarity over the land ownership within the red line of the application and, if no issues were identified, that officers could proceed to determine planning approval or, if an issue did became apparent, that the application could be brought back to the Committee.

            A further Member suggested that the Committee should defer consideration in order to facilitate a discussion between the residents and NI Transport Holding Company.  The Director of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that it would not be the role of the Planning Service to facilitate discussion between residents and the NI Transport Holding Company, and that it was up to the company to confirm to the local planning authority what their position was to enable officers to determine the soundness of an application.

            After discussion, the Chairperson put the case officer’s recommendations to the Committee for its consideration, namely:

      “That planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, and that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions as set out in draft in the case officer’s report.”

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