Agenda item

The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application.

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

·        the principle of the proposed development and use at that 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 Committee was advised that the site fell within the development limit within the BUAP and in both versions of dBMAP and was not subject to any zonings. The Principal Planning officer explained that redevelopment of the site for residential use was acceptable under the previously granted permission and that there had been no change in policy direction since that time, subject to detailed considerations as set out in regional policies.

He explained that the proposed layout essentially repeated the previously approved layout arrangements, comprising two blocks, one behind the other, with areas of landscaping and parking.  The front block siting had been revised from the previous permission and was

within a more constrained footprint so that the block did not extend as close to the site frontage.  He outlined that the separation distances between the apartment blocks had been slightly reduced to an average of 33 metres. The rear block was located further away from the rear boundary compared to the previous approval by approximately 1.5 metres.

The Committee was advised that the layout did not include basement parking within the layout, as previously approved.  Parking court areas were proposed instead, resulting in an increased area of hard-surfacing compared with the previous permission. He explained that it roughly equated to the larger built form area of the buildings in the previous permission and was acceptable.

The Members were advised that the front block had been reduced in height by approximately 1 metre from the previous approval. The height of the rear block had also been revised, with an overall reduction of approximately 1.9-2 metres from the highest section, but with a slight increase of the lower section of 1.3 metres compared to the previously approved details.

The Principal Planning officer reported that the proposal would not adversely impact on the amenity of existing residents due to the separation distances to existing properties and the layout which would ensure no adverse amenity impacts for prospective residents. He explained that amenity space provision equated to 18 square metres per unit and the overall open space provision exceeded the 10% requirement in PPS7 & PPS8. The site was also in close proximity to public open space. The floorspace of the proposed apartments was in accordance with the space standards as set out in PPS7.

Parking would be provided at a ratio of 1:1 which was slightly below parking standards. However, Travel cards for a period of 3 years, in addition to a car club facility, were proposed as part of the travel plan arrangement to mitigate against the deficit. DFI Roads had no objections and the proposal was therefore considered compliant with relevant policies.

The Principal Planning officer explained that 35 objections had been received along with one letter of support. The issues raised included height and positioning of the buildings, impact on traffic, residential use was not appropriate given its proximity to the A55 in terms of pollution from vehicle fumes and noise, health and safety impacts from the adjacent golf course, it ignored the surrounding established environment, it was a major development for which the developer had failed to consult stakeholders, it assumed use of Shandon Park Golf Club land to enable the development to proceed and that it would destroy the existing boundary treeline.  The issues raised had been fully considered in the report.

The Principal Planning officer outlined that officers had met objectors from Shandon Park Golf Club on 10th March, 2022.  They had reiterated their objections at the meeting, including the need for a ball catch fence.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. H. Thompson, on behalf of Shandon Park Golf Club, to the meeting.

He advised the Committee that:

·        the Golf Club had no objection to the development of the site for social housing, rather, their objections focused on two main points:

§  the positioning of the residential blocks and how the developer intended to construct them without damaging the Club’s property and the existing landscaping; and

§  the boundary treatment which was proposed now that the works had commenced and the developer had removed the existing boundary trees and hedgerow;

·        the natural boundary to the south consisted of trees and hedgerow and had been destroyed by the developer’s contractor, who, over the last couple of months, had cleared everything inside the development site including the Club’s property;

·        while the Club had been advised that that was a civil matter between the parties, it was important to note that not only had the boundary been destroyed but in doing so the developer had regraded the few metres of Shandon land on the outside of the fence to enable the retaining walls to be built;

·        the Club had written to the developer regarding the destruction of its land and existing boundary and, in response, they had claimed that they would be providing enhanced landscaping which was ludicrous as trees and landscaping would take at least 20 years to mature;

·        he requested that the Committee would, if granting permission, condition that the applicant would provide a ball-catcher fence 10-12 metres high to provide protection whilst any new landscaping was maturing, similar to another development at 55 Shandon Park whereby the developer had been given planning approval subject to conditions to erect a ball-catcher fence and semi-mature trees;

·        before the site was cleared, the thick boundary hedging on all sides was very difficult to penetrate. The new development had now stripped this significantly, not only on the south side but also the northern boundary which sloped very steeply to a river which formed their joint boundary;

·        clearing the hedging had exposed the development to a slope of 9-10 metres high over a length of 15 metres.  They believed that with the site cleared of vegetation, it was only a matter of time before the ground collapsed and blocked the watercourse; and

·        it was anticipated that the difficulties encountered by trespass, anti-social behaviour and abuse that they experienced elsewhere, where the course perimeter was weak, would be echoed here, if the planning approval did not condition the erection of a substantial metal fence on all boundaries rather than a timber post and board fence which would deteriorate in a few years.

The Chairperson then welcomed Mr. B. Owens, agent, Mr. P. Turley, Architect, and Ms. A. Conway, Radius Housing, to the meeting.  Together they advised the Committee that:

·        the apartments were for the active elderly/over 55s and 5 units for wheelchair users;

·        they wanted to be a good neighbour and had offered to meet with the objectors in respect of the boundary concerns raised, however, the extant permission meant that there was a fallback position for the applicant and that they were keen to commence with the development as quickly as possible;

·        the design was not dissimilar to the previously approved plans and in fact provided significant betterment with reduced building heights and greater separation distances from the surrounding boundaries;

·        in relation to trees and boundaries, an independent tree impact assessment had been submitted which identified a number of trees to be removed due to health and safety and tree condition;

·        a landscaping plan had also been submitted which sought to complement and supplement the retaining boundaries and included a number of semi mature trees;

·        the area was in great need of social housing and that it was important to note that those who would be moving into the newly built accommodation for the over 55s would therefore free up family accommodation elsewhere in the system; and

·        it was a vacant brownfield site and the project would bring regeneration of £10 million.

            A Member asked the officers if the request from the Golf Club for the requirement to install a ball-stop fence could be included as part of any approval.  In response, the Principal Planning officer explained that it would not be appropriate to attach such a condition as the health and safety issues was a matter for the golf club to ensure that golf balls did not stray into adjacent land from their property.  He sought to clarify that the application in respect of 55 Shandon Park which Mr. Thompson had cited had originally been submitted without a ball stop fence and that subsequent plans had then included a fence.  He advised the Committee that it was not clear whether the applicant had volunteered to implement the fence as part of the application but he confirmed that the fence had not been conditioned by officers.

            In response to a further Member’s question, Mr. Owens advised the Committee that the extant permission had permitted the applicant to clear the site within its original terms and that they were happy to meet with Mr. Thompson and the Committee on site if that was requested but that he did not feel that it should hold up the process.

            A Member suggested that the Committee could defer the application to allow the Committee to meet on site with the objectors and the applicant.  A further Member stated that it would be senseless to delay the application as there was an extant planning permission in place for the site and that social housing was much needed in that area.  He added that the parties could meet to discuss the fence and boundary arrangements after the application had been dealt with.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to grant permission subject to conditions and to enter into a Section 76 Planning Agreement with the applicant to secure the green travel measures.