Agenda item

            The Planning Manager (Development Management) advised the Committee he was aware that information had been circulated to members of the Committee directly by the applicant. He reminded members that this was contrary to the Committee’s Operating Protocol and, as such, its contents should be disregarded. He also explained that if Members did receive correspondence about a particular application that it should be forwarded to Democratic Services.           

            The Planning Manager provided the Members with the key aspects of the outline application for the principle of demolition of the current building and the construction of 12 apartments.  He outlined the key issues which had been considered in the assessment of the proposed development.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, where the agent had submitted a number of points highlighting the sensitive history of the site and had sought to counteract a number of the reasons for refusal within the case officer’s report. 

            The Planning Manager advised the Committee that the site was located within the Belmont Area of Townscape Character (ATC) in draft BMAP and was in close proximity to the Cyprus Avenue Conservation Area. 

            He explained that nine objections had been received in relation to the application, citing issues with the design, scale and density, impact of the proposed development on traffic, traffic safety concerns relating to the nearby primary school, insufficient parking provision and the overlooking of neighbouring properties.

            The Committee was advised that DfI Roads had objected to the application citing unacceptable access, issues with parking provision and that a Transport Assessment Form (TAF) was required.

            The Planning Manager advised the Members that it was considered that the existing building made a positive contribution to the character of the draft ATC and that its demolition was considered unacceptable.  However, he advised the Committee that the site’s sensitive history, as the former Kincora Boys’ Home, was also a material consideration.  He explained that it was within the Committee’s gift to determine whether the sensitive history of the site carried such weight that it could agree that demolition was, in fact, acceptable.

            The Committee was advised that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the site could accommodate development of the scale proposed without harm to the character and appearance of the area, the amenity of neighbouring residents and that it failed to make adequate provision for parking.  The Planning Manager explained that the proposal was accompanied by insufficient information to assess the impacts of the proposal in respect of parking, air quality, noise and drainage.

            The Members were advised that a refusal of the application was recommended for the reasons as detailed within the report.

            The Chairperson explained that Mr. L. Black, applicant, Mr. A. Warren, architect, and Ms. T. Cassidy, Planner, had requested to address the Committee and they were welcomed to the meeting.

            Mr. Black stated that he believed demolition consent should be granted due to the reported history of the former Boys’ home.  Mr. Warren explained that, after discussion with planning officers, they had been advised to reduce the number of car parking spaces on the site.  He stated that 36% of houses in the city did not have access to a car and that the location of the site had excellent public transport links.  He also advised the Committee that the Drainage Assessment was a technical issue which could easily be resolved.  Ms. Cassidy advised the Committee that the site was on white land and that she believed exceptional circumstances existed, as contained in PPS6, in terms of the sensitive history of the building.

            A Member queried why there was an issue associated with the parking provision in the proposed development.  In response, the Planning Manager explained that each site had to be determined on its own merits, within the correct context and in terms of the use.  He clarified that residential use and commercial use of a site had different standards.

            A number of Members stated that they felt there were grounds for the demolition of the existing property, given the sensitive history associated with it.  A number of Members however, also expressed concerns with the proposed development for the site.

            The Planning Manager advised the Committee that, if it was minded, it could refuse the application for the reasons within the Case officer’s report but with the removal of reason 1, namely, that “the demolition of the current structure would harm the character and appearance of the area”.

            The Divisional Solicitor added that the Committee could not agree to the demolition of the existing building in insolation.  She confirmed that, as it was one application, the Committee was required to determine whether to accept or refuse the application in its totality, or to defer consideration in order to undertake a site visit.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed:

1.      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; and

2.      that DfI Roads be invited to attend the next meeting in order to discuss the issues which had been raised during discussion.