Agenda item

(Councillor Carson had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 18th October, before presentation of the application had commenced, it had deferred consideration of the application so that the Committee could 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 number of objections, description of the height, scale, mass and the potential impact on the listed buildings within close proximity to the site.

            The Committee was apprised of the principal aspects of the proposal in the addendum report. The case officer advised that the application sought permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 6 and 11 storey blocks in a mixed-use development to include purpose-built, managed student accommodation with 271 studios, shared communal areas and landscaped roof terraces. The ground floor to include a reception, 2 retail units, car parking and cycle storage (amended scheme).

            The case officer advised that, after the agenda report had been published, two letters of support had been submitted from Laverys Public House and Benedict’s Hotel suggesting that the vacancy and dereliction of Bradbury Place had an adverse impact on existing businesses, and the proposal would be of economic benefit and a catalyst for redevelopment of the area.

The case officer explained that, after assessment, the application had been recommended for refusal on the grounds, that:

1. The proposal was contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland, Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015, the Belfast HMO Subject Plan, and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Quality Residential Environments’ in that it would, if permitted, cause unacceptable damage to the character of the area due to the uncharacteristic and inappropriate height, scale, massing and design and fails to provide adequate outlook and amenity space for prospective residents.

2. The proposal was contrary to policy BH11 of the Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage, in that insufficient detail had been provided to determine if the works proposed made use of traditional or sympathetic building materials and techniques which respect those found on the listed buildings in the locality.

3. The proposal failed to satisfy the policy requirements of BH11 (Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building) and criteria (e) of BH12 of Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage, in that the proposal, if permitted would adversely impact the setting of listed buildings in the locality of the site and views into and out of the Queens Conservation Area due to inappropriate scale, height, massing and design.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. D. McConkey, Solicitor at Carson McDowell, Ms. S. Woods, Planner at ACOM, and Mr. A. Nesbitt, Conservation Architect, on behalf of the applicant. They clarified a number of issues which had been raised in the report regarding objections, the character of Dublin Road and Bradbury Place, the assessment of the area and the boundaries used, misplaced policy, the listed buildings affected by the proposal and suggested that too much focus had been placed on PPS 7. They outlined their support for the application and highlighted the investment and regeneration opportunity for the area, the reduction of the amended scheme, their willingness to consider developer contributions, and the sufficient amenity space and compliance of the design of the proposal.

            Mr. McConkey also answered Members’ questions regarding the requirement for student housing in the area.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Bunting,

            Seconded by Councillor Hutchinson,

That the Committee agrees to adopt the recommendation to refuse the application, as set out in the case officer’s report.

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

(Meeting adjourned for 5 minutes at this point)

(Councillors Carson and Lyons returned to the Committee table at this point.)