Agenda item

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that requests from two separate deputations of objectors had been received, both requesting five minutes to address the Committee.  They had cited exceptional circumstances, through the most recent change in Covid-19 restrictions, whereby residents were no longer allowed to visit other people inside their homes, and no more than six persons from two households were permitted to gather in a garden, which had meant that all objectors had been unable to meet in person and discuss their concerns as one group, and had therefore had insufficient time to prepare one deputation remotely.  The Chairperson explained that, if the Committee was to accede to the request from the two groups of objectors, and allow each group to speak for five minutes, it would only be fair to give the agent/applicant deputation ten minutes.

            The Committee acceded to the request to receive two separate deputations from objectors, of up to five minutes, and that the agent/applicant deputation would therefore be granted up to ten minutes to speak.

            The Senior Planning officer explained the main issues which had been considered in the assessment of the application, which included:

·         the principle of the development of at the location;

·         visual impacts of the proposal;

·         impact on amenity / character of the area;

·         impact on built heritage;

·         impact on the natural environment;

·         impact on transport and other infrastructure; and

·         flood risk

            He outlined that the main pitch, at the closest points would be located 29metres from the nearest dwelling at 28 Beechlands, and approximately 51.6metres from the nearest dwelling in Cleaver Park.

            The Committee was advised that, whilst the proposal would result in the reduction of the playing surface area to allow for car parking facilities, those facilities were necessary and a policy requirement to support the proposal.

            He advised the Members that the proposal would not adversely impact on amenity, traffic, heritage assets or flooding. He explained that the proposed scale, form, massing and materials of structures proposed were considered acceptable and would not adversely impact on the local character of the area. The Committee was advised that existing trees within the site and around the site periphery, in addition to new planting would filter views of the structures. The Members were advised that changing room facilities had originally been proposed but had been removed from the proposal in order to safeguard the heritage contribution of ancillary buildings.  On balance, he explained that the proposal would not result in detrimental visual impacts.

He explained that a number of conditions were necessary to mitigate impacts of the development, including the hours of operation of the facility and a restriction on the use of floodlighting between the months of October and February.

            The Committee was advised that 116 objections had been received, the details of which were outlined in the report.

            The Senior Planning officer reported that DFI Roads, Historic Environment Division (HED), NI Water, Rivers Agency, the Conservation Officer, Natural Environment Division, Environmental Health and DEARA NED had been consulted and had no objections to the proposal.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, which outlined a number of issues which had been raised by Cleaver Park residents.  The Planning Department’s response to the issues were provided within the pack.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Groogan to the meeting, where she had two minutes to address the Committee.  She advised the Members that:

·         the proposal was in a unique setting in the Stranmillis ATC, it was directly in the middle of the Malone and Stranmillis conservation areas and was  in close proximity to a number of listed buildings, TPOs, protected flora and fauna;

·         few sites attracted such a level of historic interest and, as such, it required a special level of intervention and measures to uphold the value that the area provided;

·         the conditions proposed do not go far enough given the peculiarities of the site;

·         the recently approved pitches at Pirrie Park included restricted use of the pitches – whereas in this proposal it was not just restricted to the college use; the hours of use were significantly longer; and protected views would be obscured by floodlights causing serious detriment to residential amenity;

·         in relation to the noise assessment, it highlighted that while the development itself was acceptable, it did not properly consider the cumulative amenity impact on nearby residents due to the intensification of site usage; and

·         the proposals were contrary to policies BH12 of PP6 and Policy OS4 and OS7 of PPS8.

            The Chairperson then welcomed Mr. E. Loughrey, agent, Mr. F. Bryan, Chair of Cleaver Residents’ Group, and Mr. M. O’Toole MLA to the meeting, representing the first group of objectors.

            Together they advised the Committee that:

·         they could not hope to do justice to the strength of opposition from the residents of Cleaver but that it should be highlighted that there had been 126 letters of objection submitted in respect of the development, and zero in support;

·         there was no compelling case for the development, and scarce public funds from DfE should be better used;

·         the area concerned was one of the most protected environments in Belfast and was designated as an historic park and garden and was therefore different and distinguishable from all other 3G pitch applications the Committee had considered;

·         the Department had failed to give special regard to the protection of two conservation areas;

·         the College was already deficient in parking.   It had offered to provide 100 parking spaces to address parking issues but the application only provided for 34 spaces;

·         there was no visual impact assessment on the Stranmillis Conservation Area or the inter-visibility of the two conservation areas;

·         there was no evidence as to the previous use of the site and the intensity of the hockey pitch use, despite repeated requests from the Environmental Health Officer, confirming that the site had been used as a car park for many years;

·         the ecological assessment was out of date and did not account for the evidence of badgers found in the area recently;

·         there was already a level of anti-social behaviour from students living at the College and that the proposal would impacts negatively on residential amenity of Nos 36 & 38 Cleaver Park through noise, disturbance, likely anti-social behaviour, parking and lighting;

·         there were concerns that the increased use of the site would create an worse parking problem in Cleaver, both during construction and when completed;

·         they were concerned that the application was being pushed through during the pandemic and that the objectors did not feel they had a fair hearing given the restrictions imposed that week which prevented residents from meeting in each other’s homes; and

·         that the application should be refused or, failing that, its assessment should be paused until a time when the residents of Cleaver could be given a full face to face hearing in front of the Planning Committee.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Garrett

            Seconded by Councillor Hutchinson and

      Resolved – that, in light of a number of technical issues which have occurred throughout the meeting to this point, including that two further objectors were unable to join the meeting to speak, the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to a future meeting, the date and time of which are to be agreed by the Chairperson.