Agenda item

            The Principal Planning officer reminded the Committee that it had initially considered the application at its meeting on 15th June, 2021.  At that meeting, the Committee had agreed to defer consideration in order to undertake a site visit.  The site visit had taken place on 10th August.  She explained that the application was subsequently relisted for the meeting on 17th August, 2021, but that the application was withdrawn from the agenda as amended drawings had been submitted late and the proposal description was amended.

She advised the Committee that the application was previously recommended for approval, subject to a Section 76 planning agreement to secure the inclusion of an area of rear amenity. However, following the submission of amendments, including a change of the description to social housing and the removal of the rear communal amenity area, it was now recommended for refusal.

The Committee was advised that the proposal description had been amended to ‘Partial demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings to provide 16 apartments (social housing units), comprising 10 one bedroom and 6 two bedroom units and communal bin store’.  Amended drawings were also received which included the following changes:

·        removal of the rear communal amenity area;

·        relocation of the bin store / cycle parking area; and

·        amendment of the internal floor plans.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that two further objections had been received in relation to the development. Both of whom had previously objected to the proposal. The additional issues raised included fire safety issues, no mature landscaping was proposed, residential use was not suitable for the location, proposed density was unacceptable, it did not represent family accommodation and was not suitable for special needs use and potential structural issues.

            In relation to the amenity space, she advised that the agent had stated that the overgrown area to the rear would be cleared and grassed, to improve the outlook, but not included as formal amenity space. Consequently, the total area of proposed amenity space was approximately 137 square metres, equating to 8.5 square metres per apartment.  While the applicant stated that the area would be improved, it was not within the ownership or control of the applicant and no longer formed part of the application. 

She explained that, while 10 of the proposed apartments would benefit from some degree of private open space, the remaining six apartments had no private amenity and were thus completely reliant on the small communal courtyard at the rear of the site.  The Members were advised that Paragraph 5.20 of ‘Creating Places’ put an emphasis on private communal open space in the form of landscaped areas, courtyards and roof gardens and that only 39 square metres of the proposed amenity space was communal.

She advised that a large proportion of the proposed amenity space related to two private areas at the front of the building for Apartments 1 and 2, of approximately 62.5 square metres.  It was not considered that the area represented a quality amenity space, due to the noise associated with traffic along University Road.

The Committee was advised that, as the original scheme had included the rear communal garden, which would have been somewhat protected from traffic and street noise, the original case officer report had concluded that, given the various amenity options within the development, the proposal was considered acceptable in terms of noise. However, following the amendments, it was now considered that the scheme was more reliant on the small amenity space provided at the front and on balconies and that it fell short in terms of both space and quality of space. Consequently, it was now considered that the proposed amenity space would result in an unacceptable adverse effect on proposed properties in terms of noise.

The Principal Planning officer added that, whilst a communal courtyard was proposed at the rear of the development, it was minimal at approximately 39 square metres and likely to be overshadowed for a significant period of the day.

She explained that the agent had advised the close proximity of Crescent Gardens, King William Park and Mountcharles Gardens as public areas of open space which were easily accessed from the proposed development. Although it was acknowledged that the proposed development was located in relatively close proximity to those public areas, it was not considered that it was an acceptable substitute for the deficit of communal space within the proposed development.

She reminded the Committee of the ‘Eia Street’ appeal decision (PAC ref. 2018/A0070), whereby the Council had refused permission for 15 apartments as adequate provision had not been made for appropriate open space as an integral part of the development.  She explained that approximately 80 square metres of open space was proposed within the application site, with the developer relying on close proximity to public parks to make up the shortfall. The PAC had agreed with the Council’s reason for refusal and dismissed the appeal, with the other refusal reason not sustained. It was, however, acknowledged that all planning applications were considered on their own merits and that the Eia Street example differed from the current development, in that it was not located along an arterial route.

The agent had provided a number of precedent cases whereby the Council had departed from Policy QD1 and the advice contained within ‘Creating Places’ to allow residential developments with a reduced standard of amenity space.  She drew the Committee’s attention to the officer’s comments in response to each case which was included within the Case officer’s report.

In respect of the change to the description of the application, the NIHE had been consulted on the proposal, as it referred specifically to social housing.  The NIHE had confirmed that the proposal was situated within an area of strong housing need in Belfast and that it was aware that the developer was in contact with a Housing Association regarding the proposed apartments, however, it had also advised that the units proposed did not appear to meet DfC Design Standards for social housing.

            The Principal Planning officer advised that amended floorplans had been submitted to address the issues which had been raised by officers regarding internal floorspace and it was considered that those concerns had been addressed by the applicant.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. K. Carlin, agent, to the meeting.  He advised the Committee that:

·        the existing building had been severely fire damaged in January 2020 which had impacted upon the buildings on either side of it and that it was a blight on the area;

·        the communal area at the rear had been removed from the scheme as the Housing Association which the developer had spoken with had stated that it would not be feasible for them to manage such an area;

·        the average amenity site for the apartments was 8.5 square metres which was just under the Creating Places guideline of 10 square metres;

·        the Case officer had not advised them that there were concerns regarding the quality of the communal area to the rear of the development and that they had not therefore had a chance to discuss it, and that they had requested a meeting with the Principal Planning officer to discuss the issues but that she had declined;

·        the building was in a Conservation Area and therefore the front façade had to be retained, which constrained the development opportunities.  He outlined that balconies were not possible to the front and that 8.5square metres was therefore the maximum achievable amenity space;

·        he struggled to understand why the amenity space was deemed unacceptable when a similar permission was granted 70 metres away on University Road, which had no amenity space in such an urban area;

·        the proposed development was 140 metres from the city centre boundary and if it was within Shaftesbury Square it would be deemed acceptable;

·        it was on an arterial route;

·        it should be treated as a refurbished building as, before the fire, it would have been a refurbishment and that the developer was being penalised;

·        he refuted that the Eia Street scheme was comparable to the application in question;

·        he questioned the logic of the case officer’s concerns in relation to unit sizes versus communal amenity space;

·        the British Standards relating to noise stated that a compromise was needed between elevated noise levels and the convenience of living in urban areas, and that the refusal reason given by the case officer would rule out nearly any development along arterial routes, which was contrary to policy and the emerging Local Development Plan; and

·        the site was in a highly accessible location and all units were above the space standards required, with some 30% larger.

            Mr. Carlin advised the Members that Mr. J. Laverty, noise consultant, was also in attendance to answer any questions in respect of the application.  In response to a Member’s question, Mr. Laverty confirmed that the only noise issue would be from outside the front two ground floor apartments, not inside.  He explained that the Environmental Health officer had omitted an important part of the British Standards, where development should not be prohibited on the basis of elevated external noise in respect of urban areas.  He added that 55 decibels was not absolute, rather that it was a guideline. 

            The Chairperson confirmed to the Committee that the two refusal reasons listed in the report related to amenity space.

            The Chairperson put the officer’s recommendation, to refuse the application for the following reasons, to the Committee:

1)     The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the scheme results in overdevelopment of the site as it fails to provide a quality residential environment for prospective residents due to inadequate and inappropriate public and private amenity space; and

2)     The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the proposed amenity space will result in an unacceptable adverse impact on proposed residents by way of noise and nuisance.

          On a vote, eleven members voted for the recommendation, one against and one no vote, and it was accordingly declared carried.