Agenda item

            (Councillor Mullan, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The Committee considered an application which sought permission for a social housing scheme, comprising of 27 two-storey dwellings. The case officer outlined the principal aspects of the proposal and explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the following grounds: 

·        The proposal was contrary to the Planning Policy Statement 8 Open Space, i.e., ‘Sport and Outdoor Recreation’ in that the development would, if permitted, result in the loss of existing open space and, therefore, affect adversely on the environmental quality and character of the area and no exceptional circumstances has been provided to outweigh the loss of open space;

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7, i.e., ‘Quality Residential Environments’, in that the scheme, if permitted, would result in unacceptable damage to local character and create an undesirable living environment for prospective residents due to unsatisfactory form and layout and inadequate provision of amenity space;

·        The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1 and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7, in that insufficient information had been submitted to satisfy that the amenity of prospective residents would not be adversely affected by noise and disturbance from the adjoining railway line; and the applicant had not demonstrated that satisfactory measures would be incorporated to mitigate potential ground contamination;

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy QD1 of the Planning Policy Statement 7. i.e., ‘Quality Residential Environments’ and related guidance, in that it had not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide a satisfactory means of access and adequate facilities for parking as part of the development; and

·        The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, i.e.,  ‘General Principles and Policy FLD 3 of Planning Policy Statement 15: ‘Planning and Flood Risk’, in that it had not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide satisfactory measures for the mitigation of flood risk and in particular drainage.

            The Committee received representations from Mr. C. Hughes, on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the applicant had not been formally requested by the Planning Service to submit a range of outstanding information.  In addition, Councillors Boyle and Hargey outlined their objections to the recommendation that the application be refused.

Proposal

      After further discussion, it was

               Moved by Alderman R. Patterson,

               Seconded by Councillor Bunting,

      That the Committee agrees to adopt the recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons outlined within the report.            

Amendment

               Moved by Councillor M.E. Campbell,

               Seconded by Councillor Armitage,

      That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to its meeting in August.

            On a vote by show of hands, seven Members voted for the amendment and six against and it was declared carried. The amendment was then put to the meeting as the substantive motion and was passed by seven votes to six.

(Councillor Mullan returned to the Committee table at this point.)