Agenda item

The Principal Planning officer provided the Members with the details of the application for 21 apartments and three retail units within a single building which ranged from four to six storeys in height.

She explained that the application was due to be considered by the Committee on 18th May but that it was deferred so that Members could gain an understanding of the context of the site through a site visit.  The Committee had undertaken a site visit on 3rd June.

The Members were advised that the site was located within the development limits for Belfast in both the BUAP 2001 and the draft BMAP 2015. The site was within a housing action area in the BUAP and fell within the draft Templemore Avenue Area of Townscape Character.

She reported that the main issues which had been considered in the analysis of the application included the principle of the proposal at that location; the design, layout and impact on the character and appearance of the area; the impact on residential amenity; impact on built heritage; access, parking, and transport; infrastructure capacity and impact on human health.

While the principle of the proposal and the proposed use were considered acceptable, she explained that it would result in overdevelopment of the site and would be out of character with the area. She also advised the Members that the proposal was contrary to the SPPS and PPS 7, in that it would result in an overly dominant building which would cause unacceptable damage to the local character due to the height, scale, massing, thereby resulting in overdevelopment of the site.

It was also reported that the proposal was contrary to draft BMAP Arterial Route Policy AR02, which stated that building heights and massing should be appropriate to the scale of the street and should generally be two to three storeys high.  The proposed amenity provision was inadequate and inappropriate and was therefore contrary to the SPPS and PPS7, in that the development would create undesirable living conditions for prospective residents.  The Members were advised that the proposal would impact on the setting of the listed buildings and, as a result, failed to comply with PPS 6.

She outlined that the scheme was not subject to a Pre Application Discussion (PAD) and that the applicant did not take the opportunity during the process to address the issues raised.

The Members were advised that 11 representations and a petition of support with 682 signatures had been received to date.  She detailed that the points raised in the letters of support included that the proposal would help to regenerate the area; that the scale of the building should be approved as it was a gateway building on a brownfield site and would enhance the appearance of a derelict site; housing provision; economic and community benefits; and that Cornerstone Ltd’s work was of a high standard.

In respect of the impact on parking and traffic, DfI Roads had expressed no objections. Rivers Agency had stated that they required additional information.  NI Water and Environmental Health had offered no objections.

The Members were advised that, during the deferral period, the applicant had added an area for a temporary local art installation on the western elevation, in response to the Council’s concerns relating to the exposed blank façade of the six storey western elevation.  However, while art features could improve the aesthetic appearance of a building, she explained that, in this instance, it did not overcome the concerns as it did not address the scale of the gable and still represented overdevelopment of the site.  It was considered that the overall height, scale and massing of the building was over dominant and would result in a clear imbalance along both Templemore Avenue and Newtownards Road.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the latest submission from the applicant included alterations to the ground floor layout, including a reduction in retail space; the provision of additional amenity space on the ground floor and in the form of private balconies to the rear of the two bedroom apartments, and that the design of the central apartments had been altered to open plan living/kitchen spaces in the central apartments to increase natural light.  As a result of those changes, the second refusal reason cited in the May 2021 planning committee report, referring to the lack of quality amenity space, could be removed.

            Whilst the existing site was vacant, she advised the Members that it did not contribute to any special features of the area.  A six storey building of the proposed scale, height and massing was at odds with the two to three storey domestic scale character of the street and that the proposal was more akin to city centre development.

The Members’ attention was draw to the Late Items pack.  The Principal Planning officer explained that HED had objected as it was contrary to Policy BH11 of Planning Policy Statement 6 and had offered further comments in relation to the views of the listed buildings which would be impacted by the proposal.  They stated that:

·        the immediate setting of St Patrick’s Church of Ireland would be impacted by the development in views along the Newtownards Road from both the East and West;

·        the wider setting of the other three churches – Westbourne, St Matthew’s and Megain Memorial would be impacted less so;

·        their spires would be obscured by the proposal from certain viewpoints, however it was generally accepted that in an urban context, views were dynamic rather than static;

·        the six-storey element would, if permitted, set a new precedent for building heights and that would diminish the character of the existing setting and would appear dominant; and

·        the four churches rose above the relatively low buildings as focal points, and contributed to the sense of place and were an important source of local identity.

The Members were advised that the agent had been made aware of officers’ design concerns and had been advised that officers would be recommending refusal.  The Principal Planning officer outlined that the agent did not amend the scheme but submitted a rebuttal to the issues raised by officers and consultees.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. J. Martin, agent, and Mr. D. Jackson, managing Director of Cornerstone Construction NI.  Together, they advised the Members that:

·        the current site and the adjacent site were currently derelict and in need of regeneration;

·        the height restrictions mentioned in the draftBMAP were dropped on the adoption of BMAP and they had also not been carried forward into the latest draft plan strategy.  Whilst draftBMAP did have material weight, appeal decision 2016/A0202 stated that the draft BMAP urban design criteria should be afforded little weight if it was in compliance with BUAP;

·        BUAP encouraged new housing to stimulate urban renewal;

·        the Belfast Agenda included the aim of housing 66,000 additional occupants by 2035, with the new Local Development Plan aiming for 37,000 new units in Belfast, and to reach that goal it was crucial that existing brownfield sites, particularly derelict ones, were allowed to increase density;

·        the western elevation had intentionally been left blank to allow for the future regeneration of no.171 Newtownards Road and to comply with Building Control Regulations;

·        there was no natural heritage to protect on site and the proposal was presented towards the Newtownards Road and stepped down towards the characteristic area of the ATC. The site was included in the ATC by default and detracted from the area. The current vacant site was a gap in the urban streetscape and detracted from the ATC and their proposal would help revive the important intersection;

·        the scale, massing and heights of the proposal had been carefully considered, with minor setbacks and contrasting materials all used to break the massing of the proposal whilst also keeping the footprint of the proposal feasible;

·        the planning report emphasised the residential nature of the area and the low buildings featured within it.  However, the surrounding development and extant site could not be ignored. The streetscape analysis, using VU.CITY clearly highlighted how the building sat within an area of taller buildings, yet they had been disregarded;

·        the committee report stated that the opinion of HED had not changed from the submission of the heritage statement which was untrue. In its initial consultation response HED stated that 2 or 3 storeys should be sought, and in its final response it stated it should be 4/5 storeys. It was evident that HED was not opposed to taller buildings, though they felt that the emphasis HED placed on a lower building height was misplaced;

·        the proposal did not detract from the nearby church spires, it sat 4metres below Westbourne’s Spire, 17metres below the spire of St Patrick’s and 27metres below the spire of St Matthew’s;

·        Cornerstone’s approach was about finding the dark corners of the city, the parts that others overlooked, and to create projects which unlocked their potential and that the site in question, which was within walking distance of the city centre, had been overlooked for decades and was why their proposal for the site had been overwhelmingly supported by local residents;

·        all Councillors representing the Titanic DEA supported the application;

·        the site overlapped two wards, one sat within the 4% most deprived and the other the 8% most deprived in the NI Multiple Deprivation Index;

·        the project would be the first in the Northern Ireland to incorporate intentional community building into its model.  They had invested significantly in building Community Life, offering residents the opportunity to build relationships with those in the building and incentivise healthy, greener lifestyles; and

·       there was a big difference in planning permission being granted and sites actually being developed, and that they were not just chasing a green paper.

A number of Members stated that, while they were sympathetic to the work and the ethos of the applicant, in terms of regenerating the area through the creation of much needed housing, they had to make their decisions in line with Planning Policy.  Further Members urged the applicants to ensure that their future proposals were compliant with planning policies at an early stage.

In response, Mr. Martin explained that PPS7, in terms of the scale, height and massing of a building, was down to perception and that there was no written rule with exact numbers.  He stated that they felt that the application was in compliance with PPS7 and that the planning officers had ignored the higher, surrounding buildings and had instead focussed on the single and two storey heights which were from a different era.  Mr. Jackson added that, having spoken to numerous residents in the area, they had referred to the surrounding dereliction, boarded up buildings and paramilitary murals and that the site was in need of regeneration.

In response to a question from a Member in respect of whether any of the apartments would be social housing, the applicant advised that they envisaged it as mixed tenure, with private and social housing together in one building.  They explained that they were in conversations with a housing association but that their first task was to have the planning permission agreed.  Mr. Jackson added that they had approached NIHE in relation to social housing for the proposal but, to their surprise, the area was not currently deemed to be an area of social housing need by the NIHE and that this needed to be rectified. 

            In response to a Member’s query regarding the limited amenity space for residents, the deputation advised the Committee that they intended that the residents would congregate within the public realm spaces.  They outlined to the Members that they had connected with the Smart Cities’ Civic Dollars scheme, which sought to connect people with the local community, encourage shopping with local retailers, encourage volunteering and the use of local parks, with incentives for anyone who did so.

The Chairperson welcomed Ms. N. Golden, HED, to the meeting.  She clarified that the images that HED had submitted had demonstrated a four storey building which HED felt could fit comfortably on the site.  The application in front of the Members was a third taller.  She explained that HED believed that a four storey building, with a setback to five, would striking the right balance in terms of addressing the dereliction which currently existed there and the impact on the Listed Buildings.  She added that three storeys of commercial property was roughly equivalent to four storeys of residential. 

In response to a Member’s question, she clarified that the shoulder height of the Skainos building and the Masonic Hall would be the comfortable height in terms of Policy BH11.  She added that the scheme was not far from acceptable to them and, subject to changes, might be acceptable.

The Cornerstone NI representatives stated that they had not been afforded the opportunity to resubmit or change their application and that if they could have made a four storey building viable, they would have done so.  They suggested that the Planning Committee should question what the City needed in areas of low value land as opposed to rigidly abiding by planning policies which could just be applied by planners.

The Principal Planning officer, in response to the discussion between the applicant, the Members, HED and officers, explained that those were the types of conversations which should have taken place at PAD stage, upfront and before the application had been submitted.  She explained that the applicant was made aware, in early March, of the officers’ concerns with the scheme and that their recommendation would be for a refusal.  She explained that the applicant had three months in which they could have proposed amendments and that they had used the deferral period to submit amendments to some, but not all, of the issues raised.  She added that the applicant had sent a rebuttal to the officers’ comments instead of amended plans. 

The Members were also advised that there was no indication within the planning application that it was for social housing.

In response to a further Member’s query, the Planning Manager explained that the design context of the site was critical and that all sites were different in terms of the surrounding scale, height and massing, nearby listed buildings and individual character of an area. He explained that each design had to be considered within the specific context of the site.

The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to refuse the application and that she would use delegated authority to finalise the refusal reasons.