Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a summary of the application and outlined the following key issues regarding the principle of development:

·        The site was outside the development limit to be balanced alongside case for enabling development, other benefits and any negative impacts;

·        Benefit of the enabling development – reuse of the three remaining historic pavilions;

·        Scrutiny of the financial argument for enabling development;

·        Delivery of social housing;

·        Delivery of an outdoor play area;

·        Improved connectivity through the site to Ballylesson Road and adjacent woodland; and

·        S76 Planning Agreement to ensure delivery of enabling development.

He provided the Committee with the Strategic Planning Policy Statement definition of enabling development and outlined its benefits and financial argument, with regard to the proposal.

He reported that no statutory or non-statutory consultees had offered any objection to the application, except for NI Water, which had objected on the grounds of a lack of wastewater capacity.  He added that 17 third party representations had been received, that included one letter of support and he outlined the issues which had been raised and addressed within the officer’s report.

He stated that the principal of enabling development was considered, on balance, to be acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. C. Shanks, Clyde Shanks Ltd., speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr. M. Doherty, Naylor Devlin, and Mr. B. McKervey, Historic Environment Division, DfC, to the meeting.

Mr. Shanks explained that he had worked closely with the Planning officers and commended the comprehensive case officer report which balanced and weighed all material planning considerations and recommended approval of the application.

He stated that the application would deliver significant planning gain and outlined the following key considerations to the Committee:

·        The new build development would generate vital funds that were essential to enable the restoration of the three remaining listed pavilions on site secured on a phased basis through a section 76 agreement;

·        The application would enhance open space provision for all residents;

·        Delivery of affordable housing units for active elderly at a level of provision (15%) that was accepted and supported by NIHE and endorsed through the viability report assessment by the Council’s independent consultant;

·        Enhanced connectivity for all residents through Phase 5 to the Ballylesson Road and through to the woodland to the north;

·        Enhancement of the existing mature landscaped boundaries (with fifty-six new trees to be planted) that would reinforce the site’s distinction with the open countryside beyond it;

·        Incorporation of green travel measures, that would include travel cards and other incentivised measures secured through section 76; and

·        The facilitation of an orderly and logical completion of development within the wider site whilst safeguarding the future of its significant and important heritage assets.

He concluded by stating that he commended the Planning officers’ recommendation to the Committee.

In response to comments from several Members, Mr. McKervey clarified that the Historic Environment Division did not have authority to condemn a building and asked if Mr. Shanks could provide an understanding of his terminology.

Mr. Shanks explained that the third pavilion building his client had restored and converted was not a listed building and therefore did not have the same protection or requirement, nevertheless his client still did so in order to protect the group of buildings that were present on site.

Following a Member having expressed dissent to the application, the Chairperson put the officer recommendation, to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement, and deal with any other issues that arise including from the final consultation responses from DfI Roads, provided that they were not substantive, to the Committee and on a vote by show of hands, seventeen Members voted for the recommendation and one against and it was declared carried.

(Councillors T. Brooks and Whyte, having declared an interest in the following item, left the meeting whilst it was under consideration.)