Agenda item

            (Councillor Groogan, having declared an interest in the item, did not participate in the discussion or vote in respect of this item and left the meeting for the duration.)

            The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application which had been deferred without presentation at its meeting on 14th September, due to a request from an Elected Member.

            She explained that 74 objections had been received in relation to the proposed development.  The Members were advised that the site was not zoned within either BUAP or dBMAP, however, part of the site was located within the proposed Ormeau Area of Townscape Character (ATC) in dBMAP. The site also fronted onto an arterial route in dBMAP.  The Committee was provided with the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the development, which included the impact on the character of the area, impact on residential amenity, impact on parking and impact on sewage and drainage infrastructure.

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby Councillor Gormley had referenced a number of plans and drawings which were also included within the Case officer’s presentation.

            The Senior Planning officer advised that, throughout the processing of the application, numerous amendments had been made to address issues around the design, impact on character, residential amenity and landscaping.  She explained that it was considered that the proposal respected the surrounding context and was appropriate to the character and topography of the site in terms of layout, scale, proportions, massing and appearance.

She outlined that many of the objections related to the lack of parking within the proposal and pressures on existing street parking. The location of the site was considered to be highly accessible as it was on an arterial route and provided convenient access to public transport links, local neighbourhood facilities and the city centre.  The Committee was advised that a Draft consultation response from DFI Roads had been received, stating that it had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. The Parking survey submitted in support of the proposal, together with a parking survey undertaken by DFI on 11th February, 2020, demonstrated sufficient availability of on-street parking within the vicinity of the site to accommodate the requirements of the development during its peak periods of parking demand.

The Senior Planning officer reported that adequate provision had been made for open space within the proposed development, in accordance with Creating Places. Furthermore, it was considered that the proposed landscaping assisted with integration and softened the visual impact of the proposal.

The Committee was advised that the proposed development might result in some overshadowing, however, on balance, given the surrounding context and the amended design, it was not considered that it would create an unacceptable adverse impact on surrounding properties. It was also acknowledged that views towards existing dwellings were achievable from the bedroom and study window of Type A apartments on the first and second floor of Block A. However, the apartment windows were orientated towards the rear amenity area rather than the neighbouring properties, which were at an approximate 45 degree angle. The Senior Planning officer outlined that it was not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of overlooking. She reported that there were no concerns in relation to loss of light, outlook, noise or general nuisance for any existing or proposed properties.

The Members were advised that NI Water had stated that the scheme could be registered on a pilot scheme, aiming to provide a site specific solution for sewage and drainage infrastructure. The pilot scheme related to both foul and storm connections and therefore it was considered that conditions should be applied in the event of approval. A Drainage Assessment had been submitted and Rivers Agency had requested further information.  She confirmed that approval was recommended, subject to receipt of a satisfactory updated Drainage Assessment.

The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Gormley to the meeting.  He advised the Committee that:

·        the residential density was twice that of surrounding developments;

·        there were no balconies or other private open space within the apartments;

·        the two and three bedroom apartments would likely be used by families with young children, who required useable communal outdoor space;

·        covid had highlighted the importance of access to adequate outdoor space;

·        every pathway and shrub was counted as outdoor amenity space and the useable outdoor space was therefore significantly less than the quoted 238square metres, and was closer to 45square metres;

·        he urged the Committee to consider the useable amenity space within the application and stated that the case officer had used the term “usable” in the previous application on the agenda; and

·        suggested that the Committee should defer consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit.

          The Chairperson then welcomed Mr. G. Rice, Lower Ormeau Resident’s Association Group, and Ms. S. McKeown, local resident, to the meeting. They advised the Committee that they objected to the application for the following reasons:

·        the gable wall in Block B would obstruct natural light getting into the rear of Ms. McKeown’s house in Shaftesbury Avenue;

·        the light blockage caused by Block B would have a major impact on Ms. McKeown enjoying the amenity of her own home and her health;

·        residents supported the development of the site and had supported a previous application for 14 apartments with ground floor shops, which had been granted approval;

·        the site had caused major problems for residents throughout the years;

·        the current proposal constituted over development;

·        the amenity space was insufficient for a sustainable family type development;

·        Block B would have between 35 and 45 adults living in it, with only 45 square metres of communal space;

·        no consultation or engagement had taken placed between the developer and the local residents; and

·        they requested that the Committee undertake a site visit in order to view the context of the application.

          In response to a Member’s question regarding how long it would take DFI Roads to formally sign off the Private Streets Determination, the Senior Planning officer advised that there had been a recent change in management in DFI Roads which had caused a small delay but that it should only take a few weeks.

          A further Member requested information on the housing density on main arterial routes and how the application fitted within that.  The Senior Planning officer explained to the Committee that, while the surrounding streets were at a lower density, it was not uncommon to have a development on an arterial route at the density of 180 dwellings per hectare.

          Moved by Councillor Garrett

          Seconded by Councillor Maskey and

          Resolved - That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposals at first hand, particularly to consider the useable amenity space on site.