Agenda item

(Councillor McMullan re-joined the meeting at this point)

            The Planning Manager presented the details of the major application to the Committee, made by Belfast City Council, for a new parkland for Section 2 of the proposed Forth Meadow Community Greenway. It included foot and cycle pathways, landscaping, lighting columns, new entrances and street furniture.

            He outlined the key issues which had been considered by officers during the assessment of the planning application, including:

·        the principle of development;

·        impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        impact on natural heritage;

·        access, movement and parking, including road safety;

·        impact on built heritage; and

·        flood risk.

            The Members were advised that the site was a large area of open space, characterised by planting and a variety of trees and includes the Forth River Ravine to the east of the site.  The area comprised a mix of uses.  The Innovation Factory was situated immediately adjacent to the site and, further to the north, west and south of the site the area was mostly residential with a large supermarket to the north east.

The Planning Manager explained that the site was located within an area zoned as industry and commerce in the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP).  He advised that part of the application site was zoned in the 2004 version of draft BMAP 2015 (dBMAP v2004) as an area of Existing Employment/Industry under designation BT010 – Employment/industry Land at Springfield Road (Former Mackies Site). The Members were also advised that the site was also located partly within zoning WB 04/12 Housing – Lands to the south of Ballygomartin Road and to the east of West Circular Road. In addition, the site was subject to the following environmental designations: Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) – BT 102/26- Springfield Pond/ Highfield Dam; Local Landscape Policy Area (LLPA) BT 160 Woodvale / Springfield Road; and a Community Greenway BT162/02.

He explained that part of the application site was zoned in the 2014 version of draft BMAP 2015 (dBMAP v2014) as an area of Existing Employment under designation BT 004 – Land at Springfield Road (Former Mackies site). The application site also fell within an uncommitted housing site WB 04/04 – Land between West Circular Road and Ballygomartin Road, either side of the Forth river.  In addition, the site was subject to two environmental designations: SLINCI - BT 084/26 – Springfield pond/Highfield Glen’ and a Community Greenway BT147/02.

            The Committee was advised that Environmental Health, Northern Ireland Water, BCC Tree Officer, BCC Landscape, Planning and Development team, DFI Roads Service, DFI Rivers Agency, Historic Environment Division (Historic Monuments); Historic Environment Division (Historic Buildings); DAERA Water Management Unit, DAERA Regulation Unit; Shared Environmental Services and DAERA Natural Environment Division had been consulted in respect of the application and had raised no issues of concern subject to conditions.

The Planning Manager explained that the proposal had been assessed against the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP), dBMAP v2004, dBMAP v2014, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2, PPS 3, PPS 4; PPS 6, PPS 8, and PPS 15. He reported that, having regard to the assessment of the Development Plan and relevant material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable.

            He advised that two letters of support and three objections had been received in respect of the application and the issues they raised were set out in the main report.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, whereby a letter had been received from Nicholas Quinn Solicitors, acting on behalf of Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) who had objected to the application.  The letter raised issues in respect of loss of employment land, policy interpretation, a reference to an error in the Committee report,  that dBMAP 2015 greenway zoning aligned with the Forth River Valley and not the site, concerns about prematurity in relation to the delivery of the new Belfast Local Development Plan (LDP) and requested that the Committee would defer consideration so that fuller representations could be made in respect of the Committee report.  The Planning Manager advised the Members of the Planning officers’ response to the issues raised.

            The Late Items Pack also included the details of correspondence which had been received from the applicant, the Council’s Physical Programmes team.  The correspondence included the objectives of the Shared Spaces project, that £5million of funding had been secured in respect of the project and set out concerns regarding potential slippage of the time programme.  The Members were asked to note the correspondence.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. C. Trew, Director of Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) and Ms. M. McMahon, Organiser at PPR.  Mr. Trew advised the Committee that:

·        there were elements of the Case officer’s report that did not adequately address objections which they had raised, particularly in respect of PPS4 which focused on protecting the employment zoning;

·        PPR did not believe that the proposal complied with PPS4;

·        they had a long-standing interest in the former Mackie’s site and believed that it should be used for much required social housing in West Belfast; and

·        there were currently 1,805 children on the housing waiting list in that area.

Ms. McMahon advised the Committee that:

·        she was speaking on behalf of the numerous families who were in housing stress and who were not able to attend the meeting at short notice;

·        that West Belfast had the highest need for social housing and that the former Mackie’s site was a substantial size and could address that need;

·        PPR had been working in coalition with planners, architects, academics and artists renowned in their fields, who recognised the potential of the Mackie’s site and who wanted to build sustainable, equitable and eco-friendly housing; and

·        requested that the Committee would defer consideration of the application in order to work with PPR to create a better plan for the site, with the inclusion of much needed housing.

            A Member stated that, while she was extremely sympathetic with PPR and their desire to create more homes in West Belfast, she did not believe that the topography of the site in question could be built upon.  She asked the PPR representatives why they felt that the application for the greenway works were prejudicial to housing being built elsewhere on the wider Mackie’s site.  She added that she also felt that leisure use, through a greenway, was surely better as an adjacent land use than industrial use.

            In response, Ms. Trew advised the Members that they wanted to see the Mackie’s site providing thousands of new homes.  She reported that the proposed greenway had originally been proposed to go along the river and that the current application would, in fact, create a barrier between communities rather than connectivity.  She added that they felt that the application risked sterilising the land for any other use and that they wanted to see a holistic approach.

            A further Member stated that he was also sympathetic to PPR and recognised the need for more social housing in that area of the City.  In response to a question regarding the barriers faced by those on the waiting list and who could not participate in the meeting, Ms. McMahon explained that many lived in hostels without wifi and therefore could not participate in the remote meeting.  She added that PPR had only had a day and a half to prepare their presentation to the Committee given the late publication of the Case officer’s report on the application.

            In response to a further Member’s question as to the reason why PPR would like the Committee to defer consideration of the application, Ms. Trew advised the Members that she would like their planning policy advisor, Mr. David Worthington, to be able to address the Committee in respect of a number of points within the Case officer’s report, and for the Committee to hear from a number of those who were on the housing waiting list.

            A further Member stated that it was important that the Committee was mindful of the timebound peace funding for the greenway project and also that there was no other live application in respect of the site.

            A Member asked for clarification from officers as to whether the current application for a greenway development would prejudice any future applications for housing on the adjacent land and whether the current site was suitable for being built upon.   In response, the Planning Manager advised the Committee that it had to consider the application in question, which was for a proposed greenway on the site, and whether it was acceptable in planning terms.  He explained that officers felt that the proposal for a greenway would be complementary to future applications for the adjacent land, as either employment use or housing, pointing out that employment uses and housing need green spaces. The proposal would provide a valuable visual landscape buffer, breakout amenity space for future employees and residents, and improve connectivity to the adjacent uses. He did not believe that the proposal would compromise the development potential of the adjacent land to deliver employment and housing.  The Planning Manager confirmed that the future zoning of the adjacent land would be addressed through the Local Policies Plan stage of the Local Development Plan process.

            A Member stated that, under dBMAP 2015, the site in question had been marked for housing and that the advice from officers suggesting that the greenway would be complementary to housing was a contradiction.  He also queried the equality screening of the application.

            The Divisional Solicitor advised the Committee that it must assess the application that was in front of it.  She also added that, in respect of an upcoming Workshop held by the Town and Country Planning Association, Members of the Planning Committee would be strongly advised not to attend if there was the potential for any discussion on specific sites as it would prejudice the Committee in terms of future decision making.  She explained that the application had been screened by the Equality Unit and that it had been screened out.

            Moved by Councillor Collins,

            Seconded by Councillor Groogan,

                                 That the Committee agrees to defer consideration to allow PPR more time to consider the Case officer’s report, given its late publication, and in order that their planning consultant could attend the next meeting, particularly in order to address the land use policy considerations.

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

            Accordingly, the Chairperson put the officer’s recommendation to approve the application to the Committee, with delegated authority granted to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions, and it was agreed.