Agenda item

            (Councillors Groogan and Hanvey did not participate in the discussion or vote in this item as they had not been present when the item had been presented to the Committee at its meeting on 17th August 2021.)

The Senior Planning officer reminded the Committee that the full application had been presented to the Committee on 17th August, 2021 and had been deferred to allow the Committee to undertake a site visit. The site visit had taken place on 9th September, 2021.  Subsequent to the site visit, the application had been presented to the Committee again on 21st October, 2021, where an objector had outlined their concerns and the applicant had indicated that they were content to engage directly with them. The Committee had agreed to defer consideration of the application at that meeting to allow for engagement between the applicant and the local residents who had objected to the proposal.

            Subsequent to the meeting on 21st October, the objectors had submitted a letter to the applicant’s agent detailing amendments that they considered appropriate.  These included:

·        a reduction in the number of 1no bed apartments, with more provision for accommodation suitable for families. The objectors suggested a reduction to 3no apartments;

·        provision for 1 parking space within the site and a reduction in the requirement for on street parking; and

·        efforts to retain the existing rear return with existing architectural features on the site to be retained where possible. New brickwork should be consistent with the existing Victorian brick pattern and style.

The Senior Planning officer explained that no new matters were raised which had not already been raised in previous objections and had been fully considered in the original Case Officer’s report of 17th August and the Late Items Pack of 21st October.

She drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items Pack, whereby the objectors had submitted a further letter of objection and had also advised that they had not had any response from the applicant or agent in respect of their letter.  A statement from the agent for the application had confirmed that, following a review of the objectors’ requests in the letter dated 22nd November, the applicant did not intend to amend the scheme.

The agent had also confirmed to the Council, on 7th December that, having considered the comments and the requests from the objectors, the applicant did not intend to amend the scheme.

The Chairperson advised the Committee that Mr. C. Hughes, Mr. A. Hughes and Mr. N. Hughes, objectors, were in attendance, as was the applicant, Mr. L. Bannon.  He explained that as all parties had already presented to the Committee, they were in attendance to answer any points of clarification from the Members.

In response to a Member’s question, Mr. C. Hughes advised the Committee that the applicant or agent had not contacted any of the objectors in respect of their concerns since the meeting of 21st October, 2021, despite having sent them a list of their concerns.

Mr. Bannon, applicant, advised the Committee that he had asked the architect to engage with the objectors but that there was nothing else that could be amended within the scheme in order to make it viable.

            The officer’s recommendation to approve the application, as outlined within the report, was put to the Committee.  On a vote, five Members voted for the proposal and six against and it was lost.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor of McMullan,

            Seconded by Councillor Matt Collins,

That the Committee agrees to refuse the application as, under PPS 7, the Council should only permit new development where that would maintain or enhance the overall character of the area and respect it in relation to the partial demolition of the property and the application did not meet that policy.  The Committee agrees that it is contrary to PPS 7, safeguarding character of established residential areas, given the loss of 2 family sized properties and the development of 4 single bed properties. Delegated authority is thereby given to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final refusal reasons.

            On a vote, eight Members voted for the proposal, with none against and one no vote, and it was accordingly declared carried.