Agenda item

            (Councillors Hanvey and Groogan were reminded that, as they had not been present during the previous discussion of the application, on 17th August 2021, and that they would be advised not to vote on the item.)

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that a request to speak had been received from Mr. C. Hughes, a neighbour, who had provided the Committee with details of the exceptional circumstances as to why he had been unable to attend the meeting on 17th August.  The Committee acceded to his request, based on his exceptional circumstances, and agreed that he could address the Committee.  The Committee also agreed that time would be granted to the applicant in order to respond.

            The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application, which had been presented at the meeting on 17th August, whereby the Committee had agreed to defer consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit.  The site visit had taken place on 9th September.

She reported that, at the Committee meeting on 17th August, objectors had raised concerns over the extent of demolition and stated that there appeared to be more demolition involved than was detailed in the report.  Officers had requested the extent of demolition to be clarified by the agent with a detailed demolition plan. It was noted by officers at the site visit that the existing boundary, which the drawings had indicated was to be retained, had fallen into a poor state of repair and therefore the agent was also asked that the boundary be replaced or restored rather than retained as indicated.

The Committee was advised that a demolition plan and updated drawing had been published to the planning portal on 4th October, with neighbours and objectors notified on 5th October that additional information had been received. She explained that the updated drawing, alongside the demolition plan, confirmed that only the rear return and internal walls were to be demolished and that the roof of the original property would remain in situ as detailed in the original recommendation report. The new rear return proposed was as per previous drawings.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late items pack whereby twelve more objections had been received.  The Senior planning officer outlined the officers’ response to each of the issues which had been raised.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. C. Hughes to the meeting.  He advised the Members that:

·        he lived in the property attached to the application, built in 1896;

·        the proposed demolition of the shared return would expose a large section of his party wall which held key Victorian features and structural integrity to his rear working chimney;

·        the nature of the design of the Victorian ridge tiles which the semi-detached houses shared could not simply be cut in half;

·        the site was a corner site and was fully visible from all angles within the draft ATC and removing those features was inappropriate;

·        the applicant had stated that the apartments would be for couples but they did not meet the minimum space standards;

·        the North Belfast Housing Strategy outlined a need for family homes within the area;

·        policies PPS 6 for ATC planning policy (2.0) Policy ATC 1 Demolition Control 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 7.7 and 7.8 had all been breached;

·        similarly PPS7 - Quality residential environment and safeguarding the character of established Residential Areas – 2.14 had been breached;

·        that, given two apartments were being converted into four apartments, in light of “Creating Places – Achieving quality residential environments”, additional parking should be provided;

·        the planners had stated that the demolition and addition of new dwellings for the application was exempt from the Area of Townscape Character guidelines because it was currently only a ‘draft’, but he had provided details of seven planning applications in recent years within the ATC boundary which had all been asked to apply to that guidance, and queried why the current application was being treated differently;

·        it would set a bad precedent for the area if it was allowed to go ahead;

·        he requested that the Conservation officer’s views were made public;

·        there was room within the red line to make parking available if the developer did not overdevelop it;

·        requested that the DFI Roads did not base their decision on a flawed parking survey; and

·        he welcomed consultation with the applicant and architect to develop a good scheme.

            The Chairperson then welcomed Mr. L. Bannon, applicant, to the meeting.  He advised the Members that:

·        he had reduced the application from five apartments to four;

·        he felt the design was in keeping with, and sympathetic to, the area;

·        the application would remove the unsightly side return to better match the character of the area;

·        there would be no change to the elevations on Glandore and the street scene would be unaffected;

·        a number of neighbouring properties had made alterations to their rear returns, including the adjoining no. 25 Glandore, which had an unsympathetic flat roof and a dormer added;

·        at the last meeting he had mistakenly said that the apartments would be for couples but that they would in fact be two x two person apartments and two one person apartments; and

·        that the location was suitable for four apartments, given its highly accessible location in terms of public transport and with the new Glider route.

            In response to a Member’s question, Mr. Bannon confirmed that he would be content to re-engage with the neighbours in respect of the application if the Members felt that it was necessary.

            In response to a further Member’s query as to whether there could be parking provision within the site, Mr. Bannon explained that DFI Roads had advised that car parking was not necessary but that he would be willing to ask his planning consultant and architect to re-engage with those who had concerns. 

            The Divisional Solicitor advised the Committee that, while it might be possible to amend a few elements of the application through amended drawings, it should be mindful that it was unlikely that all the issues which had been raised by objectors could be addressed through further consultation in reaching resolution and that it would likely require a new application.

            Moved by Councillor Maskey

            Seconded by Councillor O’Hara and

          Resolved – that the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable further engagement to take place between the applicant and the objectors.