Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer reminded the Members that the application had previously been deferred by the Committee, on 17th August, for a site visit in order that Members could better familiarise themselves with the site and area. The site visit had taken place on 9th September.  The application was subsequently deferred for a second time by the Committee, on 14th September, to allow the developer time to undertake further engagement with local residents who were opposed to the apartment development at the location in respect of parking and other issues.  As the application had not yet been presented to the Committee, all Members present were entitled to participate in its consideration.

The Committee was advised that a meeting was held on 26th May at Davitts Gaelic Athletic Association on the Falls Road. The meeting was arranged and chaired by the Chairman of the Clonard Residents Association, the developer, local residents and a local Councillor were in attendance. The agent had advised that residents had raised three issues of concern, namely, exiting parking and congestion issues, end user of the apartments and timescales for the development and potential construction works impact on the local residents.

            The Committee was advised that the agent had confirmed that, since the Planning Committee of 14th September, there had been ongoing discussions between the applicant and representatives of the local community. The applicant had stated that there had been regular contact with the Chair of the Clonard Residents Association.  The agent had also advised that community representatives were present at pre-application meetings whereby the design of the proposed development was discussed and that no changes to the scheme were proposed.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined that six letters of objection had been received, including a representation from the Clonard Residents Association, citing concerns with the following:

·         disruption and noise pollution during construction;

·         parking pressure/ lack of availability;

·         highway safety;

·         loss of light / overshadowing;

·         overlooking / loss of privacy;

·         lack of amenity space;

·         no prior consultation with local area; and

·         anti-social behaviour.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Members that, since consultation with the residents’ group, the Planning Service had received no further objections to the proposal.  The applicant had advised that the proposed end user for the development was to be Category 1 Social Housing apartments for the active elderly. Whilst that was welcomed by officers, there was no planning policy requirement for the apartments to be restricted solely to social housing and therefore no planning condition was recommended.

She outlined to the Members that the site was unzoned whiteland in the BUAP. In Draft BMAP 2004 and 2015, it was located along an arterial route in a designated commercial area. She explained that the redevelopment of the brownfield site and the principle of apartments at that location were considered acceptable. The provision of the retail unit was compliant with dBMAP and the proposed development would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal was considered to be sympathetic in its built form, scale, massing and appearance with the surrounding area and neighbouring properties. It was considered that the proposal would not raise any unacceptable issues in relation to residential amenity including overshadowing, loss of light or overlooking.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the proposal was unlikely to have a significant impact on the local road network in terms of traffic, road safety and parking. She explained that no provision for parking had been incorporated but that the reduced standard was considered acceptable due to the sites highly sustainable location along an arterial route with the provision of Green Travel Measures. She explained that the developer had agreed to provide a travel card for each unit for three years, as well as the provision of a cycle user subsidy scheme (e.g. Belfast Bikes) for the same period, should approval be granted.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. T. Stokes, agent, Mr. T. Donnelly, on behalf of the applicant, Mr. P. Turley, architect, to the meeting.  Mr. Stokes outlined to the Committee that:

·        the site had lain vacant for more than 5 years;

·        the vision for the site was to regenerate it and deliver much needed social housing in a part of the City with a huge growing social housing need;

·        according to a 2020 NIHE report, there were 3,834 applicants in total seeking social housing and 3,047 applicants on the housing stress list in West Belfast;

·        the scheme was designed for 13 “Category 1 over 55s” and 1 wheel chair accessible Social Housing units, and included a retail unit at ground floor level;

·        one of the concerns raised by some of the local residents had been car parking;

·        the proposed scheme design was supported by a Travel Plan and the site itself was located on an Arterial Route and the Glider Route;

·        therefore it benefitted from easy access to a number of sustainable modes of transport, and there were a number of local amenities within walking distance;

·        the Travel Plan included that each apartment, and the retail unit operator, would be provided with:

o   a 3-year Residential Travel Card for each apartment and 2 full-time members of staff within the retail unit;

o   supply of a Cycle User Scheme Group Membership for a period of 3 years; and

o   provision of secure and covered cycle parking facilities.

·        DfI Roads had offered no objection to the scheme and had proposed conditions for approval;

·        in order to give the Committee additional assurance, all measures would be secured via a Section 76 Planning Agreement instead of through conditions;

·        they had worked closely with Planning officers and the Urban Designer through the PAD and application stage to bring forward what they felt was a high quality proposal. The scheme was significantly reduced and re-designed from a previous application from a different applicant; and

·        all consultees had offered approval subject to conditions.

A Member asked what further level of engagement had taken place with the local residents in respect of the application since the Committee meeting of 14th September.

Mr. Stokes advised the Committee of the discussions which had taken place with the residents to date.  He stated that, while they recognised that the residents had expressed concerns regarding the level of on-street parking in the area, particularly from users of the Royal Victoria Hospital, they could not resolve that wider problem but had sought to include a number of green travel measures in respect of the application.

Mr. Donnelly added that he had spoken with some of the immediate neighbours regarding the proposal.  He advised the Members that a neighbour was pleased that the proposal would, in fact, allow more light into the side of their property.  He explained that there had also been almost weekly communication with the Clonard Residents’ Association in respect of preventing anti-social behaviour at the site during construction, the prospective tenants and the recurrent parking issues in the side streets.  He explained that he had been informed that the NI Assembly was currently considering a residents’ parking scheme for the streets surrounding the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) site.

A Member stated that, while he welcomed social housing in the area, he had serious concerns regarding the parking issues at the site.  He expressed concern that DFI Roads had conducted a desktop exercise in respect of parking at the site.  He added that, when the Committee had undertaken its site visit to inspect the location at first hand, all Members had difficulty finding a parking space close to the site.  The Member stated that the proposal of creating an area parking within the RVH site for some residents to use did not make sense, as the on street parking issues were largely from staff working in the RVH. 

He stated that he did not believe that the policy tests were being met, in that the application fell short of the recommended parking standards, and that the proposal would, in fact, have a negative impact on the character of the area.  He stated that the justification for reduced parking standards did not exist within the surrounding area of the site.

A number of Members agreed that the level of available parking within the surrounding streets was concerning and also queried the effectiveness of the DFI Roads consultation response.

The Planning Manager (Development Management) advised the Committee that Policy AMP7 of PPS3 stated that a reduced level of parking could be considered acceptable in areas of a highly accessible nature and that the Members were asked to note that the site in question was on a main arterial route with access to city centre via the Glider service.

            Moved by Councillor Garrett,

            Seconded by Councillor Collins and

      Resolved - That the Committee agrees to refuse the application as it is contrary to AMP7 (Access, Movement and Parking) of PPS3 in providing insufficient parking and would lead to an unacceptable negative impact on the character of the area, supported by QD1 (Quality Residential Developments) of PPS7.