Agenda item

(Councillor Lyons and Reynolds were not in attendance at this point)

             The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 16th August, it had deferred consideration of an application for LA04/2016/0559/F - Construction of 4 office blocks - Block A (10 storeys), Block B (14 storeys), Block C and Block D (3 storeys plus 4 retail units), plant and car parking with external plaza and associated landscaping at a site situated at the junction of Stewart Street/East Bridge Street and West of Central Station East Bridge Street.  That decision had been taken to enable the Committee to undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site and to assess the issues which had been outlined in the case officer’s written report regarding the height, scale, mass and also the potential impact on neighbouring properties.

            The case officer presented an addendum report and explained that, in addition to the representations outlined in the report, after the agenda report had been published, additional information had been submitted by objectors. She advised the Committee that issues had been raised regarding the scale, massing and design of the proposal, the differences in the current application in relation to the former proposal (floor height, gradient of surrounding roads) and planning process and policy concerns. She explained further that the objections had suggested unsatisfactory independent design comments, and that the proposal would not contribute to sustainable development. She advised that the correspondence received had also alleged that the development may lead to problems of access to the surrounding area and the Tunnels Project, car parking issues, overshadowing, and anti-social behaviour.

            The case officer advised that a meeting had also taken place with Dr. A. McDonnell MP and local residents on 15th September, in which scale and massing, car parking issues and objections not being considered had been raised.

            The case officer highlighted that additional information had also been submitted by Urban Prospects Limited, which suggested that the revised building layout presented a more appropriate response to the surroundings; the amended scale, massing and form achieved a better composition; and suggested that conditions should also be attached to the proposed approval for the application.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack.

            The Committee received representations from Ms. A. Campbell, Ms. T. Power, and Ms. A. Stitt, on behalf of residents. Ms. Campbell outlined a range of objections to the proposal which related to the size, scale, massing, design layout and parking, together with its potential impact on the surrounding residential houses. In addition, Councillor Hargey explained her objections to the recommendations and suggested that the connectivity to the Tunnels Project would be compromised.

            Councillor Craig outlined his support for the application and specifically to the potential for investment and new jobs for the area.

            The Committee also received representations from the applicant, Mr. P. Kearney, and Mr A. Mains, representing Kilmona Holdings, and Mr. C. Wilson, representing Jefferies Loan Core. Mr. Kearney clarified a number of issues which had been raised by the objectors and suggested that the proposal would provide positive benefits to the area, Grade A office employment space, jobs and apprenticeships, developer contribution to complete public realm works in the area, the potential of commercial rates, and the opportunity to help redevelop, in conjunction with the community, the Tunnels Project.

            The deputation answered a range of Members’ questions regarding car parking, traffic, the potential of a transport co-ordinator, the planting of trees, jobs and apprenticeships, prospective tenants, access and the relationship with the impending Tunnels Project, the developer’s contribution, and community consultation.

            During discussion, the Director advised the Committee that new information such as photographs, third party information, models, and handouts were not permitted at the Committee as they were unable to be verified and were contrary to the operating protocol. 

            Proposal

            Moved by Councillor McAteer,

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett,

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the scale, mass and design, agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable a further opinion and advice to be sought from the Ministerial Advisory Group.

            On a vote by show of hands, four Members voted for the proposal and seven against and it was declared lost.

Further Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Armitage,

            Seconded by Councillor Hussey,

      That the Committee agrees to adopt the recommendation to approve the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and, in accordance with Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, delegates power to the Director of Planning and Place, in conjunction with the Town Solicitor, to enter into discussions with the applicant to explore the scope of any Planning Agreements which might be realised by way of developer contributions and, if so, to enter into such an Agreement on behalf of the Council. The Committee also delegates power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of the conditions.

            On a vote by show of hands, seven Members voted for the proposal and four against and it was declared carried.

            During discussion, the Committee also requested that digital walk-throughs and appropriate visuals of significant applications be considered by the Planning Officers as part of future Planning Application presentations.

(Meeting adjourned for 10 minutes at this point)

(Councillors Lyons and Reynolds entered the meeting at this point)