Agenda item

            The Case officer provided the Members with the principal aspects of the application for the development and of the key issues in the assessment.

            She explained that the application was before the Committee for its consideration as it comprised 682 metres² of gross floorspace retail outside of the city centre.  The Committee was advised that the existing access to McDonald’s on the site would be used.

            The Committee was advised that NIEA, HED and NI Water had been consulted and that they had no objections subject to conditions.  The Case officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items report, where DFI Roads had submitted its response offering no objections subject to conditions.  She explained that, if approval was granted, the suggested conditions would be added to the decision notice.

            The Members were advised that two objections had been received in respect of the development, citing that anti-social behaviour and impact on the residential amenity had increased in the area since McDonalds had opened, potential overlooking issues and inadequate boundary treatments amongst others.

            The Case officer provided the Members with the response to the issues raised and explained that the units would be conditioned to be a single storey in order to prevent overlooking.

            The Case officer advised the Committee that the site was undesignated white land in the Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) and that it was designated as a major area of existing Employment/Industry in dBMAP 2004.  She added that, in the 2015 version of dBMAP, the site had been re-zoned for housing.

            She advised the Members that the site was constrained by existing development which might deem it unsuitable for housing, such as the McDonalds, ASDA supermarket, electricity substation and railway line in close proximity.  She explained that there might be a significant detriment to residential amenity of potential residents and that a potential housing site would have to share the existing access with McDonalds. 

            It was reported that a Contaminated Land Risk Assessment (Phase II GQRA) had been submitted in support of the proposal and that the proposal would effectively mitigate against potential detrimental impacts on residential amenity.

            The Case officer explained that Rivers Agency had advised that the proposal was contrary to Policy FLD1 of PPS15, but that it was considered that the proposal constituted an exception to the policy, as the proposal involved the replacement of buildings previously located on the site.  The developer had also identified the sources of flood risk and proposed adequate measures to manage and mitigate any increase in flood risk arising from the development.

            The Chairperson then welcomed Ms. C. McDonagh, agent, to the meeting. She explained that the proposal was located on what had been a plumber’s merchant and which had been vacant for a significant period of time.  She highlighted a number of the site’s constraints, including the contamination, a substation at the back corner, a railway line to the rear and that two major sewer lines transversed the site.  The Members were advised that the scheme had worked around those constraints.

            She outlined that the plans which were in front of the Committee had taken into account the objections which had been received and sought to address the issues which the representations had raised. The Members were advised that the proposal included a new 1.8metre high rendered wall along the boundary at the end of Oakmount Drive.  She explained that the opening hours would be limited to 11p.m., as was normal for restaurants.

            In response to a number of questions from a Member, the Case officer explained to the Committee that:

·        the BUAP was the extant plan, where the site was designated as white land;

·        the housing zoning was now back to draft;

·        regarding the exception to FLD1, the site was still a brownfield site as it was still in hard standing and that Rivers Agency was content;

·        in relation to separation distances, specifically relating to issues with noise and odour, that Environmental Health was content that detailed reports had been submitted and that any issues could be mitigated against with conditions; and

·        on balance, the officer’s recommendation was to approve the application.

            The Chairperson then put the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions and to delegate power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions, to the Committee. 

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