Agenda item

            The Planning Manager explained that a previous application at the site for 270no. apartments had been refused by the Committee in 2020 on the grounds of adverse impact on the setting of Listed Buildings, inappropriate height, scale and massing, design out of character with the area and over-dominant impact on neighbouring housing, loss of outlook, amenity and unacceptable harm to living conditions.  He added that a subsequent appeal to the PAC had been dismissed.

            He reported that the application proposed the construction of 104no. residential units, to include 84no. social rented units (approximately 80%), that would comprise a mix of general social housing and Category 1, over 55s accommodation.

            He stated that the proposed development would comprise of two detached blocks, ranging in height from five storeys along the Ormeau Road elevation that would step down to three stories to the rear. 

            He outlined the following key issues for consideration of the application:

·        Principle of housing in this location;

·        Housing density;

·        Affordable housing;

·        Housing mix;

·        Adaptable and accessible accommodation;

·        Design and placemaking;

·        Impact on heritage assets;

·        Residential quality and impact on amenity;

·        Community cohesion and good relations;

·        Security and design;

·        Open space;

·        Space Standards;

·        Access and transport;

·        Health impacts;

·        Environmental protection and climate change;

·        Flood risk and drainage;

·        Waste-water infrastructure;

·        Waste management;

·        Natural heritage;

·        Employability and skills;

·        Section 76 planning agreement;

·        Pre-application Community Consultation; and

·        Matters raised in representations.

            He explained that the site was a suitable and highly sustainable location for housing and that the proposal would make effective use of previously developed land and would support city centre living.

            He reported that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) was supportive of the on-site social housing proposals and that it had submitted a further response to the Council that reiterated its position on the proposal, stating that it fully supported a mixed-tenure scheme of 84 social homes, that there was a higher than average social housing stock in the area that would increase further with other schemes, and that there was a higher than average private rent and a below average owner occupation.  He stated that the NIHE had asserted that consideration should be given to intermediate tenures, private for sale or private for rent homes and that waiting lists had applicants with different circumstances, needs and levels of points that required a wider variety of housing needs, therefore, it didn’t anticipate difficulty in achieving fully mixed tenures for schemes of the scale proposed.

            The Planning Manager informed the Committee that no objections from statutory or non-statutory consultees had been received and that there had been 52 representations received, that included one petition of objection submitted from the Donegal Pass Residents Association that raised concerns with regard to the planning process, form of housing, impact on amenity, height, density, design and impact on services and infrastructure.  He informed the Committee that all concerns had been addressed within the report and summarised those issues that had been raised.

            He stated that it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. D. Broderick, Mr. T. Stokes and Mr. A. Coulson and Ms. J. Sloan to the meeting, who attended on behalf of the applicant.

            Mr. Stokes outlined the history of the site and explained that the previous refusal had highlighted many areas of concern and issues to address, such as the impact of setting of listed buildings and the relationship to adjacent residential areas.

            He stated that the proposal for a high quality shared housing scheme catered for a mix of housing needs and was located on a prime city centre site and key transport route and that it was sensitive to the adjacent residential areas through several key design features.

            He explained that the proposal had initially been for 100% social housing scheme which had been amended during the course of the application to allow for ongoing discussions between the applicant, the housing association and NIHE, in terms of final tenure mix.

            He stated that the ability to market the remaining 20 units as another form of affordable housing was currently being investigated and that it was clear from the most recent housing lists that had been provided by NIHE had shown that the demand for social housing had continued to increase.

            He informed the Committee that the proposal represented a total investment of around £25m in the city, with a build period of just under two years.

            In response to questions from Members with regard to the impact of the proposal on local residents and engagement with the community, Ms. Sloan explained that the housing association, along with the development partner felt that it had actively engaged with the local community.

            A number of Members questioned the mixed tenure element of the proposal and the applicant’s indication of an ultimate objective of a 100% social housing scheme.  In response, Ms. Sloan explained that there was a critical need for social housing and that they believed that the local community also supported social housing at the site and stated that it was preferable that the scheme was approved to deliver 100% social housing.

            The Planning Manager outlined the relevant policies and explained that the Council’s ‘Affordable Housing and Housing Mix’ Supplementary Planning Guidance stated that “In all cases, whether or not a proposal for mono-tenure social housing is deemed to deliver sustainable and balanced communities will be assessed on a case-by-case basis using the following factors:

·        ‘The level of social housing need in the vicinity of the site and the availability of land to address such needs,

·        The wider tenure and characteristics of an area, in order to minimise large areas of single tenure social housing; and

·        Whether a scheme is proposed as ‘shared housing’”

            He stated that, on balance, a 100% social housing scheme would be considered acceptable in this particular case and explained that to increase the minimum social housing requirement to 100& would overlap the NIHE’s remit as a housing authority and that the Section 76 planning agreement would not provide sufficient flexibility, should the NIHE decide not to support a scheme any greater than 80% social housing.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Murphy,

            Seconded by Councillor Doran,

“That the application is approved on the basis that all 104 residential units be provided as social rented housing (100%) and that this shall be secured by the Section 76 planning agreement.

That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement and delegates 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 matters that arise, provided that they are not substantive.”

            On a vote, thirteen Members voted for the proposal and four against and it was declared carried.

            At the request of Councillor Murphy, the Committee agreed to invite the NIHE to attend a discussion with the Committee to obtain clarity on its interpretation of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance.