Agenda item

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application for the Committee and outlined the following key areas:

·        Principle of short term let at the location;

·        Character, design and appearance; and

·        Impact on amenity.

            She reported that a final response had been received from the Waste Management Team which was content with the proposed waste management arrangements and that 37 objections had been received and the issues raised had been considered within the report.

            She stated that it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor R. Brooks to the meeting who attended to speak in objection to the application.

            Councillor R. Brooks stated that she didn’t believe that the proposal was in line with the intent of the Belfast Local Development Plan, particularly with regard to the housing policies.

            She stated that the assertion that the site sits within an existing tourism cluster was incorrect as the Oval football grounds was a periodic match day venue, organised tours were on an enquiry led basis and were very infrequent.  She explained that the report referred to Eastside Visitor Centre, CS Lewis Square and Templemore Baths Heritage Experience and stated that, whilst they were important civic and heritage assets, they functioned primarily as a daytime attraction within a wider city tourism offer and that overnight accommodation demand would remain within the city centre.

            She stated that, with regard to policies HOU1 and HOU2, insufficient weight had been given to the strategic housing objectives of the Local Development Plan and she referred to previous comments from the Housing Executive which asserted that there should be a residential development on the site and that a previous proposal for the application site had failed, not because the site had been unsuitable for housing but because the design had not met the required standards.

            She concluded that land was limited in the east of the city and should be prioritised for housing rather than the provision of short-term lets and that the proposal was not compliant with policies HOU1, HOU2 and HOU13.

            A number of Members questioned how the proposal met Criterion (c) of Policy HOU13, concerned that the site was not located within an existing tourism cluster or in close proximity to a visitor attraction and pointed out that there was a lack of clarity as to what qualified as a visitor attraction.

            A Member pointed out that the social housing potential in the area should be maximised and that the application presented a cohesion issue with the local community.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer stated that the application site was not on land that had been zoned for housing.

Proposal

            Moved by Alderman Lawlor,

            Seconded by Councillor Whyte

                   “That the Committee refuses the application on the grounds that it is contrary to:

•                  Policy HOU1, in that the proposal would result in the loss of a sustainable urban site located in an area of demonstrable and increasing housing need;

•                  Policy HOU2, in that the proposed short term let accommodation represents an inefficient use of the land and would permanently displace the opportunity to deliver housing in a sustainable location; and

•                  Policy HOU13(c), in that a tourism cluster needs to demonstrate a generated sustainable overnight need that the application would not facilitate and the area did not represent a meaningful tourism cluster.”

            In response to the proposal, the Planning Manager explained that, with regard to Policy HOU1, the land was not zoned for housing and therefore it was not applicable.  He added that Policy HOU2 applied to Windfall Housing and was therefore not applicable as the proposal was not a housing scheme.  He explained that, to reject the application site as being within or in close proximity to a tourism cluster, would be inconsistent with the Planning Appeals Commission’s approach to recent decisions for short-term let accommodation and that community cohesion was not an applicable policy issue.

            Subsequent to the advice of the Planning Manager, Alderman Lawlor amended his proposal, seconded by Councillor Whyte, to read as follows:

         “That the Committee refuses the application on the grounds that, the proposal is contrary to Policy HOU13(c), in that a tourism cluster needs to demonstrate a generated sustainable overnight need that the application would not facilitate and the area does not represent a meaningful tourism cluster.”

            On a vote, seven Members voted for the proposal and twelve against and it was declared lost.

            Accordingly, the Chairperson put the case officer’s recommendation to the Committee and the Committee agreed to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with any other issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.