Agenda item

(The Chairperson, and Deputy Chairperson, Councillor Maskey, having declared an interest in the item, left the meeting while the item was under consideration.)

(Councillor Hanvey in the Chair.)

            The Planning Manager explained that the application had been before the Committee in September 2021, where it had agreed to grant permission with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions. 

            He pointed out that the decision had been subject to Judicial Review, and that the Council had conceded on the single point of its application of the BUAP 2001, and that, the decision had been quashed, therefore, the application had been returned to the Committee for consideration.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, which outlined correspondence that had been received in relation to the application, including appendices from Take Back the City Coalition and a link to the most up to date statistics on homelessness in the city from Participation and the Practice of Right (PPR).  The Planning Manager set out the contents of the late items report and he referred the Committee to a summary of correspondence which had been received, which included an open letter to Members, a solicitors speaking statement which had been prepared on behalf of objectors to the application, a copy of a quashing order, a letter from Take Back the City to key stakeholders, correspondence from Invest NI, press cuttings and a hyperlink to a SUSTRANS web page regarding the Forth Meadow Community Greenway. He outlined the concerns which had been raised in the late items and provided the Committee with the Council officers’ response to those issues. In particular, he pointed out that the substantive policy issues raised were addressed in the new report and he informed the Committee that, the issues which had been raised about a specific individual, were not material planning considerations and had been forwarded to the relevant Council department to consider and respond in due course. He added that, objectors had sufficient time to consider the Committee report.

            The Planning Manager made reference to paragraph 4.17 of the SPPS and addressed the concerns around prematurity of the LDP process.  He advised that the Committee must consider the application which was before it, and that any subsequent application which may seek to deliver alternatives envisaged by the objectors would be carefully considered, having regard to relevant planning policy and all other material considerations.

            The Planning Manager outlined the application which sought full planning permission for parkland, which included foot and cycle pathways, lighting columns, new entrances and street furniture.  He added that, the proposal formed Section 2 of the wider Forthmeadow Community Greenway, a 12km route that provided connectivity through the west and north of the city.

            He outlined the physical constraints of the project, stating that it had been apparent from the Members’ site visit and photographs, that a large part of the site was physically constrained as there was a steep ravine from the river up to the edge of the site, a narrow plateau, which formed the central part of the site.  He added that parts of the site were undulating and that excavations would be required to develop the site with buildings.

            He informed the Committee that the proposal was contrary to Policy IND 6 of the BUAP in that, the lands had been zoned for industrial and commercial use and that the proposal was not an economic development use listed in the policy.  He added that the proposal had been considered as consistent with Policy IND 5 of the BUAP, which sought to encourage environmental improvement of industrial estates and was contrary to the employment zonings, however it had been considered as consistent with the Key Site Requirement for retention of landscaping on the western boundary and supplemented trees and planting.

            He pointed out to the Committee that, the Strategic Planning Policy Statement did not apply to the site as not all elements within the zone land were equally developable and that large parts of the site were not considered to be well located or suited for economic development purposes.

            The Planning Manager reported that, the proposal was contrary to Policy PED 7 of PPS 4, and explained that, the Planning Advice Note to PPS 4 accepted that, there could be special circumstances in which a departure from the development plan zoning could be acceptable, however those special circumstances were not defined and that officers had advised that there were a number of special circumstances that the Committee should consider, in that the proposal:

·          Was consistent with the aims of Policy IND 5 of BUAP;

·          Was consistent with the Key Site Requirements in dBMAP in relation to landscaping;

·          Involved land that had significant physical restraints;

·          That there was a significant oversupply of employment space in the area; and

·          Was a key component of the wider Forthmeadow Community Greenway.

            He explained that employment zoning would remain and that the development would not preclude future development of the applications site for employment or housing and that, the proposed greenway had been considered as well suited, given the site’s physical constraints for built development and that funding was in place to establish a greenway in the location.

            He stated that there had been no objections from statutory or non-statutory consultees and that objections had been received from Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR), Take Back our City and Town and Country Planning Associations

            He concluded by informing the Committee that, although the proposal was contrary to Policy IND 6 of the BUAP, there were material considerations which were considered to justify the grant of planning permission and that, officers recommended that planning permission should be granted.

            The Chairperson welcomed and Ms. C. Trew, Ms. M. McMahon and Mr. S. Brady, from Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) and their Solicitor, Mr. N. Quinn. to the meeting.

            Mr. Quinn informed the Members that he was asking the Committee to refuse the proposal on the basis that, there were more efficient uses for the land to produce both a greenway and either housing development or employment.  He explained that, the Forthriver valley physically split the Mackie’s land and cannot be used for buildings and was the logical centrepiece of a fully planned Mackie’s site.  He stated that the proposal ignored the Forthriver valley, which would become a no-man’s-land and most likely attract antisocial behaviour, he added that it would have no physical connection with the Mackie’s land and therefore could not be used as either ancillary or complementary to any project.

            Mr. Quinn stated that PPR were of the opinion that, a better use of the site would be to establish a mixed use development with a greenway at the centre, overlooked and protected from antisocial behaviour, in accordance with the current zoning.  He added that, the land remained zoned for employment and was protected from non-employment uses by SPPS 4, policy 7 and the emerging policy EC4 of the Local Development Plan Strategy.

            He outlined to the Committee that there were two clear reasons for refusal:

·          Loss of employment land

·          Ancillary development or use would be secondary to the main use.

            He said that PPR were respectfully suggesting that there was a better way and that the application should be refused and the whole of the land should be replanned, he informed the Members that, PPR had begun the process and had launched an international masterplan design competition, the winner of which would be announced in August, which would serve as a blueprint for the development of the site which would benefit the whole of the city and added that, if they proposal was to proceed it would significantly harm the site’s potential.

            Ms. McMahon, on behalf of Take Back the City, explained that she was not clear on the position of the Irish Government or the European Union on the project funding and concerns which had been raised.  She added that, she was not clear on the Department for Communities position on the project, who own the land, or the Department for Infrastructure’s position.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. D. Anderson from McAdam Design, on behalf of the Applicant, to the meeting.  Mr. Anderson stated that the proposals comprised a key part of the project which aimed to enable reconciliation and interaction between divided communities, regeneration for local neighbourhoods and would break down many physical and metaphorical barriers which existed through the creation of a network of shared open spaces.

            He informed the Committee that McAdam Design had conducted an extensive set of public consultations and that project designs had been developed based on the feedback and principles established throughout the consultation events.

            He pointed out to the Committee that the project had secured over £5M of public funding, which was subject to the terms in the respective letters of offer and was timebound with a final spend date of December, 2022 from SEUPB and March, 2023 for DfI/DfC funding and that any slippage in the programme would result in a loss of funding.  He added that, to date, there had been over £3.2M expended on the project, which included Glencairn, Clarendon Park, Springfield Dam and ongoing works at Bog Meadows and Falls Park. 

            He concluded by stating that, the proposal was an integral element of the project and that the design provided a high-quality path network and shared space which linked communities, and that a contractor for the Forthmeadow Greenway had been appointed, and was awaiting instruction to proceed with the works at the Mackies site.

            Ms. Trew pointed out that Council officers had stressed that the topography of the land was extremely challenging, and questioned that, if that had been the case, what had been the purpose of a greenway that would remain completely unconnected to the employment land of which it was supposed to be ancillary to. 

            Mr. Brady stated that he had experienced difficulties gaining information from officers and that there were no technical, legal or planning barriers that could not be overcome on the Mackies site, in order to deliver homes.  He added that, the facts of the case had not been explored and the absence of input from DfI, DfC, EU, SEPUB and the Irish Government, relating to concerns that had been raised, particularly, the involvement of key stakeholders in the development and delivery of the programme, and that, the committee was not in possession of the facts in relation to the case and would not be able to fully consider the facts.

            The Divisional Solicitor stated that the Judicial Review had challenged the Council because it had failed to adequately consider policies that would protect the economic zoning of the site, and that the decision had been quashed due to a technical policy in relation to employment and the issue had been addressed.  She added that, the report before the Committee did not relate to any new information which had been provided by the applicant and was a reconsideration of information which had been provided through the course of the planning process and had been publicly available.

            She addressed the query from Mr. Brady with regard to input from statutory consultees, and stated that, the Committee was a planning authority which applied planning policy, and that the objections which had been raised, were in relation to an individual and the broader consultation that had taken place by the Council, which were matters for the department of the Council concerned with the delivery of the project, and that those concerns had been raised with the Department, and would be responded to in due course.  She reminded the Committee that its role was to assess the acceptability of the application, having regard to planning policy and relevant material considerations.

            Moved by Councillor Hussey,

            Seconded by Councillor Douglas,

            That the Committee agrees to approve the application and grant delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions.

            On a recorded vote, seven Members voted for the proposal and one against, with two no votes, and it was declared carried.