Agenda item

            (Councillor McMullan, having declared an interest in the item, left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and did not participate in the vote)

            The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application.

            She outlined that the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application included the principle of development, the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the draft Area of Townscape Character (ATC), the effect on amenity and traffic and road safety.

The Committee was advised that eight objections had been received from neighbouring properties, raising issues predominantly with parking and road safety concerns as well as the impact on a residential area and concerns regarding light and noise pollution.  She explained that the concerns had been addressed within the Case officer’s report.

            The Members were advised that the principle of development for the proposed extension and alterations to the veterinary hospital was considered acceptable as it was directly related to the already established use. The proposal would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area nor give rise to any unacceptable impacts regarding residential amenity.

She advised the Committee that the Council had consulted DFI Roads, requesting it to consider the objections regarding parking and road safety. She highlighted that DFI Roads had offered no objections to the development proposal.

The Members were advised that, given the response from DFI Roads, which was the statutory consultee on road safety and parking, the minor nature of the proposal and that the applicant had advised that they did not forecast an expected increase in average no. of vehicles/persons at the premises, it would be difficult to conclude that the proposal would have a significant impact or exacerbate the existing issues that would constitute a refusal.

The Committee was advised that the proposal was considered to accord with Policies AMP2 and AMP7 of PPS3 and the SPPS.

            The Members were advised that Environmental Health had also been re-consulted on the issues raised by objectors and it had confirmed it had no objections to the proposal.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby correspondence had been received from the agent.  The agent had advised that the existing on-site parking provision fell short of what was required by Parking Standards. He explained that the site could facilitate 14 parking spaces but the parking standards would mean a requirement of 34 spaces for the current building. He advised that there was no increase planned in either staff or patient numbers but rather the proposal was required for facility improvement rather than service expansion.  Currently, the practice was using some rooms for multiple purposes which was not ideal nor efficient.  He added that consultations were by appointment only, with the exception of emergencies.

            The Committee welcomed Mrs. A. Huggett, an objector and neighbour, to the meeting.  She explained that:

·        what was once a small 1960’s veterinary hospital, it had increased in size significantly over the years

·        it was situated in the midst of a residential area, and was open 24/7 and fronted onto the Belmont Road;

·        the Belmont Road, according to DFI, carried 9,000 vehicles daily and the speed limit was 30mph, and that particular stretch of the Belmont Road was extremely dangerous;

·        the application, if approved, would significantly increase the dangers to motorists, pedestrians and residents;

·        parked cars and unmarked side roads which opened onto the main road all added to the dangers;

·        for safety reasons they tarmacked their front garden so they could park their car within their property;

·        the introduction of the Glider to the Upper Newtownards Road had led to greatly increased traffic on the Belmont Road, including many heavy goods vehicles;

·        A Belfast Telegraph report in January 2021 claimed that the Belmont Road was listed as one of the worst roads for speeding in 2019, with 693 Detections.  In 2020, Covid and the resulting lighter traffic had encouraged some to drive even faster;    

·        there was insufficient parking space on site at the Vets for customers, delivery vehicles, an imaging lorry and veterinary staff which unfortunately resulted in main road kerb-side parking and, as a consequence, obstruction of sight lines for those resident on that section of the Belmont Road;

·        due to poor sightlines, they had been forced to park outside their house on the Belmont Road itself, but that was also fraught with danger - entering and leaving a car, especially if they were carrying goods or had their grandchildren with them, was extremely dangerous;

·        a chevron box and double yellow lines on vet’s side of the Belmont Road provided excellent safety and uninterrupted views for visitors to the vets when exiting. whereas residents on the other side of the road had to contend with a bus stop, very limited safety signage and hazards from mainly Veterinary staff parking for 8 hours plus daily, blocking residents’ sight lines;

·        DFI was extremely well informed of the dangers they faced and she did not understand why its response to was “No Objection”.  She had requested more details under the Freedom of Information Act but was yet to receive anything. 

·        the Police had provided her with a much-needed warning sign regarding Parking outside her property; and

·        if successful, the application would lead to an additional 42 square metres of floor space which was likely to require more staff and more cars, worsening an already bad situation.

The Chairperson thanked Ms. Huggett for her contribution.

He then welcomed Mr. G. Dunlop, applicant, to the meeting. 

Mr. Dunlop advised the Committee that he would be happy to meet with Mrs. Huggett and that he would ask that his employees did not park in areas which obstructed her sightlines.

Accordingly, the Chairperson put the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and to delegate power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions, and it was agreed.