Agenda item

            The Director of Planning and Building Control provided the Committee with the following points of clarification on the issues which had been raised by Members at the Pre Determination Hearing:

Social Housing

·        the 20% social and affordable housing was a negotiated position in advance of the anticipated LDP policy with a requirement for 20% provision;

·        the previous Committee resolution was for 10% social housing at Academy Street – i.e. a single option;

·        the new recommendation allowed more flexibility – with strict limits on the provision of social/affordable before occupation of all of the development;

·        that flexibility would give 3 options: either in Academy Street; off-site, but within 300m of it; or on-site. All options were equal in planning terms and that there was no preference from officers on the final location. This was to allow for commercial flexibility and to ensure that no one site was held to ransom for the developer;

·        there were a number of sites within the 300m boundary which could accommodate such provision, without any zoning issues;

·        NIHE supported these three options, and acknowledged that there was no policy requirement for this currently;

·        the detail of the size, mix and final location of the social/affordable units was to be determined at Reserved Matters (RM) stage, which was standard practice in a 2 stage planning application process. It will also require Social Housing Provider and thus NIHE sign-off at an appropriate stage when the detail is known and to secure NIHE funding;

·        in regards to the Choice Housing relocation, this was a commercial arrangement between the developer and Choice. The planning process would be to secure adequate re-provision of this – which the Section 76 Agreement would do. Again, as it was standard practice to secure it at this stage, with full details by RM stage, or through the Section 76 process if off site.

North Street

·        As previously confirmed, this was being designed as being fully pedestrianised, which includes DfI sign off;

·        DfI had included emergency provision for access by emergency vehicles; and

·        if wider plans for the city centre came to fruition, this would be in the context of North Street being fully pedestrianised, if approved. Consideration of the outline application should be limited to the detail of the application, and not the wider city positon and that would address the context of any approvals that existed.

 “Tribeca”

·        For clarity, the Notice of Motion regarding the name of the development was noted by the Council in January 2019, but that it was not a material consideration relevant to the determination of the application.

Covid 19 Impact

·        in terms of the level of commercial provision, and the impact of Covid19, the planning system worked within a 20-30 year policy formulation context, and allowed for various fluctuations in economic conditions;

·        we had the context of a Belfast Agenda and an emerging LDP supporting ambitious growth of the city;

·        it was important that the planning system achieved a longer term vision to ensure that the city was able to recover from economic downturns as necessary, and that included the current Covid 19 impact.

            The Divisional Solicitor provided clarification to the Members on the Section 76 Agreement, which required that the social housing would be built in accordance with the NIHE standards.  In relation to issues raised regarding the public realm she confirmed that there was an obligation to keep it open to the public, apart from in emergency circumstances, and that virtually all of the closure requests would require the agreement of the Council.

            The Planning Manager then provided the Committee with additional detail on the car club provision and information on impacts on daylight and shadow analysis in relation to the Cathedral and New Cathedral Buildings. He also highlighted to the Committee that the extant permission did not provide any affordable housing and that the proposed outline application provided opportunity to do this.

            The Senior Planning officer provided further information regarding the provision of restricted areas within the proposed open space and regarding children’s play space.

            A number of Members stated that they still required further clarification on the social housing element of the scheme.  Further Members requested further information on the car clubs, new open space, Gross Value Added detail and the Section 76 Agreement.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control suggested that, in order to provide the Committee with some assurance, if one of the affordable housing elements was to be off site, that the proposed location could be brought before the Committee for its approval and sign-off.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Murphy,

            Seconded by Councillor Groogan and

      Resolved - That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the outline application for further information on:

·        the social housing element of the scheme, including the suitability of Academy Street;

·        amenity/open space provision – with a focus on the creation of new open space;

·        the economic impact and the Gross Value Added (GVA) detail;

·        the car clubs; and

·        the Section 76 negotiations.

            It was further agreed that Choice Housing be invited to attend the meeting at which the application was being considered.

(Councillor Nicholl left the meeting at this point)