Agenda item

The Senior Planning officer drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items Pack, where a letter had been received from Environmental Consultants providing further information on gas mitigation and points of clarification in response to Environmental Health concerns. He explained that the Environmental Health Department had since advised that it was content with the mitigation measures proposed.

The Members were also advised that the Social Housing element of the Section 76 Agreement had been omitted from the Committee Report.  He outlined that a Section 76 clause would be applied, requiring 100% social housing provision which had meant a subsequent reduction in parking standards.

The Members were provided with the details of the application.  They were advised of the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposed development, including the acceptability of residential use at that location; demolition in an Area of Townscape Character (ATC); impact on the character and appearance of the ATC; Scale, Massing and Design; open space provision; traffic and parking; contamination; flooding and drainage; wastewater treatment and developer obligations.

The Senior Planning officer explained that the principle of demolition of the existing buildings and new residential development was acceptable given the extant permission on the site.  The Members were advised that the additional 8 units proposed were located within the main block and had resulted in additional floorspace on the upper floor above the approved rear annex. The location of the additional mass ensured there would be no detrimental visual impact when viewed from the street.  The minor elevation changes to the Tates Avenue elevation ensured that the proposal continued to enhance the character of the ATC.

He outlined that any additional windows were located so that separation distances and screening provided by the parts of the proposed building would ensure that there would be no impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.  He added that the removal of the balconies and expanses of glazing also improved the relationship with the adjacent properties, particularly those to either side on Tates Avenue.

In relation to car parking, he advised that 30 spaces were proposed in the basement, whereas 73 spaces had been proposed in the extant permission. He outlined that the reduction in spaces had been agreed between planners, DFI Roads and the planning agent, in light of the fact that the apartments would be social housing, where it was widely accepted that uptake of parking spaces was significantly less.  A parking survey had been carried out which considered the uptake of car parking in similar sized social housing sites and had taken into account on-street parking availability (not on Tate’s Avenue) as well as the site’s proximity to the amenities on the Lisburn Road.  A Travel Plan was also proposed including green travel measures such as Travel Cards for three years, a cycle user scheme and a subsidy towards a Car Club.  He advised that DFI had advised that it was now content with the Travel Plan.

He reported that a response from NI Water was outstanding in relation to the capacity within the receiving wastewater treatment works. In the interim, and as a precaution, a condition had been proposed that would ensure that no development was carried out until such times as capacity became available.

The Members were advised that no objections had been received from third parties and that the Pre-Community Consultation Report submitted demonstrated that the applicant had carried out their duty under Section 27 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 to consult the community in advance of submitting an application.

            The proposal was assessed against paragraphs 4.23-4.29 of the SPPS and Policy QD1 of PPS7.  He advised that the design of the proposed apartments fronting onto Tates Avenue were traditional in appearance, in keeping with the built form of the immediate surrounding properties.  He reported that the height of the new buildings followed the pattern of the existing streetscape in relation to the eaves/ridge height, window/door openings and building line. A more traditional design had been adopted along the Tates Avenue elevation to respect the established vernacular and that relationship was considered appropriate in the context of the street scene on Tates Avenue.

He outlined that there were more windows in the front elevation than the previous approval, which strengthened the vertical emphasis, arguably producing a more traditional solid:void ratio more in keeping with the area.  Dormer windows were also proposed on the upper floor to match the original dormers found within the draft ATC.

The Members were advised that it was considered that the stepped heights proposed on Tates Avenue was in keeping with the sloping nature of the site and generally accorded with the height of the existing built form of the area.

He explained that the proposal had been assessed against Policy OS2 of Planning Policy Statement 8 which stated that an area of at least 3,000 square metres (10% of the site area) should be given over to communal open space.  He advised the Members that the area of open space provision amounted to approximately 1,000 square metres.  He clarified that Creating Places stated that “In the case of apartment or flat developments, or 1 and 2 bedroomed houses on small urban infill sites, private communal open space would be acceptable in the form of landscaped areas, courtyards or roof gardens, from a minimum of 10 sq m per unit to around 30 sq m per unit.”  He advised the Members that it was considered that the site was an urban infill site and, when the lower standard was applied, the level of communal amenity space would be 570 square metres. The proposed amenity provision was approximately 820 square metres and was therefore considered acceptable.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. P. Stinson, agent, to the meeting.  He confirmed that:

·        the permission remained extant, having been granted in 2019;

·        the proposal would comprise 31 active elderly units, along with 26 general needs units, and that an agreement in principle had been reached with a housing association; and

·        they welcomed the recommendation that the social housing element would be included within he Section 76 Agreement.

            In response to a Member’s questions regarding the reduced number of car parking spaces, Mr. Stinson advised the Members that the decrease would mean that the construction would take less time and that the use of parking in social housing was significantly less than with other housing developments.  In addition to the availability of on street parking nearby and the Green Travel Measures, DFI Roads were content with the results of the Travel Survey.

            In response to a further question, the Senior Planning officer outlined that DFI Roads had verbally agreed to the measures proposed but that they were awaiting a final response.  In relation to the outstanding Rivers Agency response, he explained that there was an extant approval on the site but that officers were awaiting a formal response.  

            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 approve the application and to finalise the conditions and the Section 76 Agreement.