Agenda item

(Councillor McCullough returned to the meeting at this point)

The Senior Planning officer outlined that permission was sought for the alteration and extension of an existing property, which contained two apartments, to provide four 1 bedroom apartments.   She explained that the proposal included internal reconfiguration of the rooms and the demolition and replacement of the rear return.

The Members were advised that the apartments would occupy three floors, with one apartment on the ground floor, two apartments on the first floor and one on the second floor proposed.  The rear return would be replaced, allowing bin storage, cycle parking and private amenity space to be provided to the rear of the apartments and increasing the separation distance with its neighbour to the south.

The Members were advised that the main issues which had been considered during the assessment included the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the area (including the draft Area of Townscape Character), residential amenity, access, parking and road safety and available infrastructure.

The application had been neighbour notified and was advertised in the local press. The Senior Planning officer explained that a total of 19 letters of objection had been received. The objections raised a number of concerns, including the impact on the Area of Townscape Character, design, impact on amenity, parking provision, accuracy of the parking survey and the structural impact on the adjoining property.

The Members were advised that Environmental Health had been consulted and it was content with the proposal, subject to an informative being attached to the decision.  NI Water had been consulted and had offered no objection.  DfI Roads had also been consulted and had offered no objection, subject to condition.

            The Senior Planning officer detailed that the proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the BUAP, Draft BMAP, PPS3, PPS7, PPS7 Addendum, the SPPS and Creating Places.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor McAllister to the meeting who wished to speak in objection to the proposal.  She advised the Members that:

·        part of the original building would be destroyed, which was a direct contradiction to the Council’s commitment to preserve heritage within the Belfast Agenda and the forthcoming Local Development Plan;

·        under PPS 6 section 7.8, it was recommended that, in Areas of Townscape Character (ATCs), that consultation should be undertaken with the Conservation officer.  That consultation had not taken place, and the Conservation officer had confirmed that he had been consulted on similar changes to other applications for new apartments in that area;

·        application LA04/2018/2844/F confirmed that “planning authorities must deliver increased housing density without town cramming”, however, the Case officer advised that the increased units in the current application, with a smaller square footage, should be approved;

·        many of the objections and recommendations within application LA04/2018/2844/F were relevant, such as opposition to Policy HOU 5 – a lack of adequate facilities and inferior dwellings – the even smaller square footage of the current application made that even more stark;

·        the North Belfast Housing Strategy highlighted the need for more family households, which the current application did not fulfil;

·        two dwellings would be replaced with 4 dwellings which will inevitably lead to parking issues;

·        she believed that not all processes had been followed or dealt with appropriately by Planning officers; and

·        she would request that Members would reject the application or defer the application for a site visit in order to understand the issues.

A Member requested that Councillor McAllister would expand on her statement that the correct procedures had not been followed.  In response, she outlined that the Case officer’s report stated that altered proposals were re-advertised and given to the residents who had objected, however, a number of residents who had submitted written objections were not made aware of the amended plans.  She stated that she had had to update residents that she was in contact with about the fact that the application would be considered by the Committee this month, as objectors did not automatically receive correspondence from the Planning Service advising them of such.   Additionally, she added that she felt that there was not enough emphasis on the area of townscape character within the assessment of the proposal and she highlighted the fact that the Conservation officer had not been consulted on the proposal was unsatisfactory.

            A further Member requested information in relation to the issues raised about the Area of Townscape Character (ATC).  Councillor McAllister stated that the area comprised tree-lined avenues with red bricked terraced or semi-detached houses, with some houses dating back to the 1920s.  She stated that, by altering or removing part of the roofline or the chimney, she believed that constituted a material consideration for rejecting the proposal.

            The Senior Planning officer advised the Members that the site fell within a draft ATC and that PPS6 Addendum did not apply to draft ATCs which had been established through the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC).  She added that Planning officers did consult with the Conservation team where full demolition was taking place within a draft ATC or on proposals within adopted ATCs.  However, where there were proposals within a draft ATC and which did not involve the full demolition of a building, Planning officers assessed the proposals themselves.  She explained that the policy test included examining the existing building with the proposals and considered whether they would change the overall character of the area.

            The Chairperson thanked Councillor McAllister for her contribution.

            He then welcomed Mr. N. Hughes and Mr. J. Gray, who were objecting to the application.

            Together, they advised the Committee that:

·        they had had just a few days notice that the application was being considered by the Committee this evening and they would have appreciated written notice;

·        the application included partial demolition of the back return of the property of No. 23 Glandore Avenue which was a permanent move which would expose the party wall of the neighbouring property;

·        the proposals would erode the look and character of the building, which was built in 1896, and was one of the oldest properties in the street;

·        a large number of residents had objected to the overdevelopment of the site;

·        the proposed plans had too many one bedroom apartments units on a corner site which led into a narrow cul-de-sac, with only one way in and out;

·        there was already a lack of parking in the area and no parking spaces were proposed as part of the plans;

·        the proposal would create intensification and density of the site, parking issues and cramped accommodation which was not in keeping with the residential, family area;

·        DFI Roads had acknowledged that there were flaws in the architect’s parking survey, including breaches of the highway code and therefore it could not be relied upon;

·        they believed the area to be within an ATC and they were surprised that the Conservation officer had not been consulted;

·        Mr. Hughes had applied to build a house directly opposite the site and had had to provide two parking spaces and to ensure that the views of the Conservation officer were sought in relation to the proposal;

·        the exiting layout comprised 2 substantial apartments, where families could live, whereas the apartments proposed in the plans in front of Members just exceeded the 35 square metre requirements which would mean that they would populated by a transient population and it would skew the residential nature of Glandore;

·        they were not against development but were against the proposed overdevelopment.

            Mr. L. Bannon, applicant, was welcomed to the meeting.  He advised the Members that:

·        there was considerable need for apartments for couples who don’t require parking spaces and who used public transport;

·        planning permission had been granted previously for a much larger scheme at the site, but it had been redesigned after listening to the concerns from some of the nearby residents;

·        the planners agreed with him that the design was respectful to the area and it had been designed with that in mind and it was a higher quality design than the extant permission;

·        as much of the existing building was being retained as possible and that the party wall would be built up again in accordance with building control standards; and

·        a parking survey had been completed and accepted by DFI Roads and that bicycle parking would be provided on site.

Moved by Councillor McCullough

Seconded by Councillor Brooks and

Resolved - that the Members of the Committee recommend that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive exercises her delegated authority to defer the application in order that the Committee would undertake a site visit to allow the Members to better familiarise themselves with the proposals and the site.