Agenda item

            The Senior Planning officer presented the details of the application to the Committee which he advised followed a lengthy Pre-Application Discussion (PAD) process with officers.

 

The key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposal included:

 

·        the principle of the proposed use at this location;

·        layout, scale, form, massing and design;

·        impact on built heritage;

·        impact on amenity;

·        impact on transport and associated infrastructure;

·        flooding and drainage impacts;

·        impact on natural heritage assets;

·        contamination and remediation of the site; and

·        developer contributions.

           

The surrounding area was predominantly residential, comprising typical two storey terraced dwellings to the west, north, and opposite the site on the Holywood Road. He outlined that retail and office units were located along the frontages of the Holywood Road and the Belmont Road. The Strand cinema building was located opposite the site and there was also a B2 listed building opposite the site, currently in use as the Ulster Unionist headquarters.

 

The Members were advised that the site was located next to existing housing and that the principle of residential use was acceptable at the location subject to detailed considerations as set out in regional policies.

 

In relation to the demolition of the existing buildings, the site was not located in a Conservation Area or an Area of Townscape Character, and the buildings were not listed or of any historic interest or architectural merit. Demolition was therefore not subject to planning control.

 

            The Committee was advised that the affordable housing scheme would help address an identified affordable housing need in the area and that the NI Housing Executive had advised that it supported mixed tenure development as it was an important way to create cohesive, sustainable, and balanced communities and that there was social housing need in the Housing Need Area (HNA).

 

The Senior Planning officer explained that the layout complied with supplementary guidance in terms of separation distances between proposed and neighbouring existing buildings. It also provided adequate amenity space equating to approximately 28 square metres per unit, which was above the minimum standard.

 

He advised the Committee that the dwellings on Sefton Drive would have rear garden amenity areas ranging from 50 square metres to 80 square metres.  The dwelling unit sizes for prospective occupiers complied with PPS7 and the proposal would not adversely impact on the amenity of existing residents. He added that the design, scale and massing of the proposed buildings were considered acceptable within the local context and would not adversely impact character.

 

            The Committee was advised that Historic Environment Division had recommended that further design revisions be incorporated to safeguard the impacts of key views to historic assets, namely distance views to the H&W cranes (Scheduled Monuments) and the listed building opposite the site at the corner of Belmont Road. The revisions included suggested additional setbacks and correction/clarification of drawing details. The Senior Planning officer explained that officers had explored the concerns, however, the set back space requested would render the related residential units unviable in terms of space standards for social housing.  It was considered that the visual impact of the aspects of the proposal would not be significant and would not result in adverse impacts on listed assets, taking account of separation distances and the existing built form and design of neighbouring sites.

 

The Members were advised that there were a number of trees on the site, some of which were subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).   The Senior Planning officer advised that approximately 22 trees (13 TPO) would be removed, with approximately 70 replacement trees provided, with further shrub and amenity planting also included. He confirmed that the majority of existing visually significant trees along the Holywood Road site frontage and a significant tree within the site would be retained. 

 

He advised the Committee that the replacement planting and need for social housing were considered to outweigh the trees to be removed and objections from the Tree Officer.

 

He reported that DFI Roads had been consulted and was satisfied that sufficient vehicle and bicycle parking was proposed, the access arrangements were adequate, and that the proposal would not result in a significant impact on traffic or road safety. The proposal included 56 parking spaces and dedicated internal cycle parking within an ancillary building. The Committee was advised that 11 spaces would be provided on Sefton Drive to serve the 11 proposed terrace houses and 45 spaces would be provided for the apartments.

 

While the parking equated to 0.6 parking spaces per unit, which was less than standard, DFI Roads had paid regard to the fact that the proposal was an affordable housing scheme and that the applicant’s evidence that car ownership for the type of housing proposed was less than the usual standard. Regard had also been given to the applicant’s proposed green travel measures to encourage a model shift.

 

The Committee was advised that 75 objections had been received from the public, the details of which were summarised at paragraph 9.39 of the Case officer’s report.  He explained that 4 objections were received since the last re-advertisement and re-notification process.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. P. Stinson, agent, and Mr. J. Anderson, Choice Housing, to the meeting.  Mr. Stinson advised the Committee that:

 

·        the application would deliver much needed social housing for the area.  In March 2020 there were 934 applicants in the Housing Need Area, 522 of which were in housing stress;

·        Choice Housing wanted to deliver a signature development at the site, including on site management through a concierge service and a tenant hub building to help foster a sense of community for residents;

·        it was one of the first proposals to engage in digital consultation following the onset of the pandemic.  Four separate webinars  had been held in May 2020, with over 100 people in attendance and the recording viewed over 200 times. The project website was also visited on over 5000 occasions during the consultation period and they had issued a project update leaflet prior to submission of the planning application;

·        the application submission followed an extensive process of engagement with planning officers through a 12 month pre application process;

·        the process resulted in a significant reduction in building heights and a reduction of 20 units;

·        much thought has gone into the detailing of the individual buildings and the elevations, providing design features which bring visual interest to the elevations for the site which was located at an important nodal point at the junction of Holywood Road, Belmont Road and Pims Avenue;

·        the design had secured a central area of open space that was at the heart of the development and accessible to residents;

·        the loss of trees was compensated by the provision of a significant amount of new trees and vegetation that reflected the layout and design of the buildings. It would transform the site from the current hotel use with its extensive areas of hard standing;

·        the site was on an extremely accessible location on an arterial route with excellent amenities within walking distance and public transport links;

·        secure bicycle parking would be incorporated within the site;

·        the development was also supported by green travel measures, including travel cards; and

·        the development would provide a number of improvements for the surrounding road network with enhanced footway provision around the site, a reduction in the number of existing vehicular access points and an improvement to the access into and out of Sefton Drive.

 

            Mr. Anderson stated that:

 

·        the scheme would be a new signature project for Choice Housing Association;

·        the high level of housing need drove their involvement in the much needed project; and

·        the scheme was a long term investment for Choice HA, not only financially but also in terms of creating a high quality place for their tenants for the long term.

 

            A Member stated that some residents were concerned about disruption as the development progressed. 

 

            Mr. Stinson advised that Choice Housing required the appointed contractor to be registered with the Considerate Constructors scheme, which was a not for profit organisation designed to raise standards in the construction industry.  It required caring about the appearance of the site, respecting and engaging with the community, protecting the environment and caring about safety as well as valuing their own workforce.  He also confirmed that the service management plan included arrangements as to how construction traffic would come and go from the site in order to minimise disruption.

 

            A further Member requested information on the rationale for the loss of mature trees, particularly those which were protected by TPOs. Mr. Stinson advised that they had had to balance the correct placement of the buildings along the road together with retaining as many trees as possible.  He explained that the amount of hardstanding on the former hotel site had created issues in that regard.  He confirmed that an ongoing maintenance plan would ensure that the new trees grew and become part of the value of the site and that the existing trees were appropriately maintained into the future.

 

            A further Member requested information on various aspects of the design, particularly the curved design of Block 2 being overly dominant, the impact of the scheme on the Listed Building and apartments being out of character for the Sefton Drive area.

 

            Mr. Stinson advised the Committee that the design of the curved building had been drawn from the surrounding buildings at such a key nodal point.  He explained that the Pims Avenue side of the Strand was devoid of any elevational treatment and they felt that it was a positive addition to the area in townscape terms.  He added that HED had acknowledged that there was an increase in one floor from the Listed Building but that with residential floor plates it was much reduced from what the previous proposals were and that it also recognised the separation distance between the Listed Building and the proposal and the fact that it was a bustling junction and that helped mitigate the impression of the new building with those around it.  HED considered it highly unlikely that it would have an adverse impact. 

 

            In relation to the curved elements at the end of the Sefton Drive townhouses, Mr. Stinson explained that while it was slightly different to what existed currently, it was a modern response to harmonise the character of the area and helped to bookend the end of the terrace.

 

            Mr. B. McKervey, Historic Environment Division (HED), was welcomed to the meeting.  He advised the Committee that the position of HED was broadly supportive of the scheme and that the most recent iteration framed the Harland and Wolff cranes very effectively.  He added that he felt that the curved design was entirely appropriate for the location and, although the proposal in front of the Committee was taller than the Listed Building at 2-4 Belmont Road, it did not mean that it was inappropriate.

 

            In response to a Member’s query regarding travel cards, Mr. Stinson advised the Committee that they were still in discussions the planning officers in relation to the duration of the travel cards as it would depend on viability.  He advised the Members that there were significant cost implications for connecting the scheme to NI water infrastructure, the amendments and improvements which were required at the junction at Sefton Drive, as well as the well documented increase in construction costs.

 

            A Member stated that the Tree Officer had objected to the removal of certain trees with TPOs and asked for clarity in relation to how officers determined when the removal of such trees was acceptable.  The Director of Planning of Building Control confirmed that TPOs were there to protect trees but not at the cost of any other circumstances. She outlined that officers had to consider all material considerations, and that where the removal of some TPOs was proposed, and a suitable replacement programme included within a scheme, a balance had to be stuck.

 

After discussion, the Committee granted approval to the application subject to conditions, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues, including:

 

·        the receipt and assessment of information from the applicant to inform the potential requirement for Employability and Skills Developer Contributions; and

·        finalising the conditions and Section 76 Planning Agreement, including the viability of the scheme in relation to the provision of travel cards.