Agenda item

            (Councillors Lyons and Dorrian took no part in the discussion or decision-making on the outcome of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 18th October when it had originally been considered).

            Before the presentation of the application, the Chairperson informed the Committee that a second request to speak had been received from residents objecting to the application. He advised that as the group had already made a presentation at the Committee Meeting on 18th October, they had been asked to outline the exceptional circumstances in which they wished to speak. 

            The Committee received the request from Ms. B. Herdman and Mr. M. Maguire representing residents. Ms. Herdman proposed that they sought to speak for a second time since the architect, who had acted on behalf of the applicant at the last Committee, had alleged that the dwelling house had been demolished on instruction by the PSNI. She suggested that the group had contacted the Community PSNI officer in the area who had confirmed that this was not the case.

            The Director advised that the issue raised in reference to the demolition of the property was not necessarily a new material planning consideration to what had been discussed at the last meeting, and the extent to which the Committee would rely on what had been said by representations, would not normally be considered. 

            The Divisional Solicitor reminded the Committee that the information outlined by Ms. Herdman had also been raised in writing and had been addressed by Planning Officers in the Late Items Report Pack and that the principle of demolition on the site had already been established by previous approval and was not a material consideration.

Proposal

Moved by Alderman McGimpsey,

Seconded by Councillor Bunting,

      That the Committee, agrees that the issues which had been outlined regarding the demolition of the building are not exceptional enough to grant speaking rights to the residents to make a second deputation.

            On a vote by show of hands, 5 Members voted in favour of the proposal and four against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 18th October, it had deferred consideration of the application and 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 raised regarding the density of the proposed building, and its potential impact on the townscape character of the area.   

            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. He advised the Committee that issues had been raised regarding the demolition of the property, and the measurement of the Townscape Character of the area.

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

            During discussion, the Director advised the Committee that the planning history on the site was a material consideration for this application.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Magee,

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett,

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the overdevelopment and design of the proposal, together with the potential impact on the townscape character of the area, agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable potential reasons for refusal to be outlined for consideration in an amended report at the next meeting.

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