Agenda item

            (Councillor McCullough, having declared an interest, left the meeting at this point in proceedings and did not participate in the vote)

 

 

            The Principal Planning officer outlined the key aspects of the application for the erection of 18 social houses comprising two different rows of housing.  She explained that the site had an area of 0.41hectare and was located within the development limits for Belfast in both the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 (BMAP). The application site was unzoned whiteland within the development limits in BUAP and was located within a proposed district centre designation (BT017/2) in draft BMAP 2004.

 

            The Members were advised of the main issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application, including:

 

·        the principle of the proposal at the location;

·        design, layout and impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        impact on residential amenity for existing and prospective residents

·        impact on built heritage;

·        access, parking, and transport;

·        infrastructure capacity; and

·        impact on human health.

 

The Principal Planning officer explained that District Centres were characterised by predominantly retail and commercial uses, acting as key service centres for surrounding communities. She reported that the proposal would result in a loss of space for that use and, therefore, the principle of the proposal was unacceptable on the basis that the site was within a zoned district centre and was also incompatible with adjacent land uses.

 

She outlined that the proposed residential use was incompatible with the adjacent land use which consisted of the retail units, service yards and the large areas of hardstanding for the car park. As such it was considered that housing at the location was unacceptable.

 

The Members were also advised that the layout and density proposed would result in overdevelopment of the site and that was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD 1 of PPS 7 Quality Residential Development.  The members were advised that it would result in unacceptable damage to the local character and would create an undesirable living environment for prospective residents by way of the poor layout, overlooking and inadequate amenity provision. She added that the scheme also failed to promote the safety and surveillance for prospective residents due to its location along an interface wall and within a retail park.

 

The Principal Planning officer outlined that 220 objections had been received in respect of the application, including objections from Mr. William Humphrey MLA, Alderman Kingston and Councillors Verner, Pankhurst and McCullough. The objections related to the use of the retail site for housing, impact on community issues, safety concerns, contrary to wider planning policy, inappropriate layout and impact on the character of the area, poor outlook onto a peace wall, inadequate amenity provision, design and layout create conflict with adjacent landuses, impact on residential amenity, overlooking, particularly at the north western corner of thesite, the potential of increased crime and compromised personal safety given the sensitivelocation of the site and inequality amongst provision of housing for different parts of the localcommunity.  The Members noted that the issues raised had been addressed within the Case Officer’s report.

 

She advised that a letter of support had been received from a resident of the greater North Belfast area who welcomed much needed housing in the area.  She also drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items pack, which included correspondence that had been received from John Finucane MP, Gerry Kelly MLA and Carál Ní Chuilín MLA in support of the application.  The points raised included that the waiting list for social housing in North Belfast consisted of over 4,500 applicants, demand for housing in the north of the city outstripped supply and the availability of land was one of the key barriers to addressing the housing problem, the proposal represented a positive approach to the supply of housing as it was adjacent to existing housing and would offer a good mix with the existing commercial offerings.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. Ni Chuilin MLA to the meeting.  She advised the Members that:

 

·        she was in support of the application for social housing in North Belfast, where over 4,000 people were on the waiting list;

·        she welcomed the fact that planners were concerned about people living beside an interface, however, given the fact of high housing need in North Belfast and that it was a mixed-use development, she would welcome more housing units within it;

·        while it was whiteland in both BMAP and BUAP, where there were opportunities to have mixed use sites, they should be taken;

·        there should be an ambition to make the site more accessible by green transport measures;

·        she felt it was disappointing that applications for housing on that side of the Crumlin Road were met with numerous objections;

·        a person’s perceived religion, political opinion, gender, nor sexuality should come into the decision process for whether an application was acceptable or not; and

·        that North Belfast should be a place where everyone could live, work and shop in.

 

            In response to a Member’s question, Ms. Ni Chuilin advised that she had spoken with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) last week in relation to the application and that the NIHE had indicated that it was supportive of the housing scheme.  She advised that she was unsure, therefore, as to why the status of the housing had not been confirmed as social housing in writing, either by planning officers or by the applicant.

 

            In response to a further question, she explained that the application had been deigned based on the understanding that the site would consist of a retail frontage with housing at the back and that contiguous access to the wider Ardoyne area and the Crumlin Road was required.

 

A Member asked officers to clarify whether the development was for social housing or not.  The Principal Planning officer confirmed that the applicant was not a social housing provider and that no evidence had been submitted to illustrate that the units would be taken on by a social housing provider.

 

The Members were advised that the Historic Environment Division (HED) and NI Water had been consulted and had no objections to the proposal.  DFI Roads had advised that the proposals were unacceptable and Environmental Health and Rivers Agency required further information.

 

The Principal Planning officer explained that DFI Roads had been consulted on the proposal and had advised that the application in its present form was unacceptable.  DFI Roads had made a number of comments in relation to the proposal, including that the red line did not contain sufficient areas to deliver the required works, a fully adopted road and footways would need to be delivered to serve the development, adequate visibility splays would need to be provided which might not be achievable due to trees and a wall and that a Travel Plan and a Transport Assessment Form were required. 

 

It was considered that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments: Policy QD1, in that the applicant had failed to demonstrate an acceptable road layout and parking arrangement in accordance with the guidance contained within ‘Creating Places’ and it was also contrary to the SPPS and policies AMP 1 and AMP2 of PPS3.

 

A Member pointed out that DFI Roads had advised that it required additional information in order to make a further assessment of the proposal. The Principal Planning advised the Members that further information was not requested from the applicant, given that the proposal was considered fundamentally unacceptable in principle by officers and to request such information would put the applicant to unnecessary expense. She explained that, in line with the Council’s Planning Operating principles, it was deemed appropriate to determine the application based on the information received todate.

 

Additionally, the Principal Planning officer outlined that the applicant had failed to include a drainage assessment as part of the application and that Rivers Agency had requested further information.  Again, as there were fundamental concerns with the proposal, it was considered not to request additional information from the applicant and to proceed with a determination based on the original submission.

 

Environmental Health had expressed concerns with the proposal relating to contamination, air quality and noise, and set out that the necessary assessments and reports had not been submitted with the application and would be required to make a full assessment of the impacts. Similarly, as there were fundamental concerns with the proposal and, in line with the Council’s operating principles, it was considered not to request additional information from the applicant and to proceed with a determination based on the original submission.  As such it was considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on prospective residents and was therefore contrary to the SPPS and PPS 7 Policy QD 1 Criteria (h) in that the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

 

A Member stated that he had concerns with the approach taken by officers.  He argued that surely the principle of the application was open to interpretation and, if the Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP), as the extant planning policy, considered the site to be unzoned whiteland, then technically housing was acceptable on the site.

 

In response, the Principal Planning officer clarified that it was a balance between the designation as whiteland and the fact that it was, as a matter of fact, used for retail and that there were a number of retail approvals on the site as well.

 

She explained that the applicant had been given an opportunity to submit all of the required information and would have been informed that the application was recommended for refusal but that the applicant had not submitted the information required. 

 

In response to a further Member’s question, the Principal Planning officer and the Divisional Solicitor clarified to the Members that zonings within the forthcoming Local Development Plan were not yet a material consideration as the report had not yet been received from the Planning Appeals Commission.

 

            A Member stated that the BUAP was still the extant planning policy and that, therefore, there was nothing wrong with a mixed-use development on the site.  He added that, due to the location of the site, at the far corner, once the gates were moved, it would not be 18 social housing units within a retail park.  He advised that there were social houses behind the site, at Rosehead, and that the application was therefore not incompatible with the adjacent land uses nor in conflict with the shopping centre.  He highlighted the development of 71 units at Brookfield Mill which was currently under construction.  He added that the need for social housing should be considered in terms of whether it was compatible or not.  He stated that none of the units had inadequate amenity space.  For those reasons, he advised that he proposed that the application should be approved, subject to the required reports being submitted.

 

            A further Member requested clarity as to why the site was deemed unsuitable for housing when there was housing on the other side of the interface.  In response, the Principal Planning officer explained that each application was considered based on the material circumstances of the individual site.  She explained that the quality of the environment at Rosehead was not the same as the site in question, given the road network issues, the shorter gardens, the outlook onto car parking and the amenity space which were not adequate for houses backing onto a 6 metre high peacewall.

 

            A further Member stated that he felt that a site visit would be appropriate in order to visualise the application on site.

 

            Moved by Councillor McMullan

            Seconded by Councillor Brooks,

 

                               That the Members agree to recommend that the Chief Executive uses her delegated authority to agree to defer consideration of the application in order that Members would undertake a site visit in order to view the site and consider the application in situ.

 

            On a vote, four members voted for the amendment and six against, with one no vote, and it was declared lost.

 

            The Planning Manager clarified to the Members that:

 

·        while the weight to be afford to BMAP versus the BUAP was a matter for the Committee Members to determine, officers recommended that significant weight should be given to draft BMAP, given the advanced stage that it had reached;

·        notwithstanding the zoning issue, noise assessments had not been submitted and officers had concerns regarding the compatibility of housing within the retail park, such as noise emanating from plant facilities or deliveries at unsociable hours, and cautioned that there could be legal implications and/curtailment requirements for businesses  if objections from residents at the site were to be received;

·        some of the concerns that DFI Roads had raised concerned land outside of the red line site and could lead to potential risks in terms of highway safety;

·        a contaminated land report was also outstanding and officers would have concerns relating to human health.

 

            Moved by Councillor Murphy

            Seconded by Councillor Carson

 

            That the Members agree to recommend that the Chief Executive uses her delegated authority to agree grant approval to the application, on the basis that the principle of housing is acceptable at that location, subject to the outstanding assessments on roads, drainage, contamination, air quality and noise being submitted to, and considered acceptable by, the Committee at a future meeting.

 

            On a vote, eight Members voted for the proposal and three against, and it was declared carried.