Agenda item

The Principal Planning officer outlined the history of the application to the Committee, whereby it had originally been listed for consideration on 17th August, 2021. It was withdrawn from the agenda to allow the Members to undertake a Planning Committee site visit, which had subsequently taken place on 2nd September, 2021. The application was then re-listed for consideration by the Committee on 14th September, 2021 but was subsequently withdrawn from the agenda following legal advice in respect of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) form which had not been uploaded to the Planning Portal. That information was subsequently uploaded to the Portal on 15th September, 2021.  The application was then due to be considered by the Committee on 21st October, 2021. However, priorto that meeting, the item was withdrawn from the agenda in order to deal with an issue raised by DAERA NIEA regarding waste water capacity.

 

She outlined that the site was undesignated whiteland within the BUAP and was zoned for housing within dBMAP (ref. SB05/04). The site was also located within the Lagan Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Belvoir Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) and a small portion of the site was located within the Hampton Park Area of Townscape Character (ATC). The site lay immediately adjacent to Lagan Valley Regional Park (LVRP).

 

The Committee was advised that there was an extant planning approval on a large portion of the site for 35 dwellings (ref. Z/2007/1401/F).  The Principal Planning officer explained that a recent application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use/development (CLEUD ref. LA04/2020/2324/LDP) had confirmed that works had been carried out in accordance with the previously approved development and could lawfully be completed.

 

The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack.  The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee that the addendum report had incorrectly stated that an additional 19 objections were received following the latest issue of neighbour notification letters in December 2021. That was an error and a further 16 objections had been received at that time.  However, further to the publication of the report, three further objection letters were received, including one from Paula Bradshaw MLA. No new issues were raised.  Consequently, a total of 19 additional objections were received following the latest issue of neighbour notification letters in December 2021. The total number of objections stood at 231.

 

            The key issues which had been considered in the assessment of the proposed development included the impact on ecology; traffic, road safety and access; the character of the area and on potential rights of way.

 

The Members were advised that, throughout the process, numerous amendments had been received to address issues around the settlement limit boundary, the topography of the site, the inter relationship of units and internal boundaries, residential amenity and landscaping.  The Principal Planning officer explained that it was considered that the proposed development was generally respectful of the surrounding context and character of the immediate locality. Furthermore, it was considered that the pattern and layout; the design, scale and density of the development was appropriate and generally in keeping with the overall character of the area; and the environmental quality of the established residential area would be maintained. She outlined that there would be no significant negative impacts to the amenity of existing residents and that the scheme would result in a quality residential environment for prospective residents.

 

The Committee was advised that supporting information had been submitted in relation to the impact on ecology, specifically in relation to habitats and protected species, including badgers. Following consultation with NIEA, it was considered that the proposed development complied with the policy tests of PPS 2, subject to conditions mitigating potential ecological impacts.

 

DFI Roads had provided comments on the proposed development, including access, car parking and the intensification of Hampton Park junction. Following amendments to the scheme, DFI Roads had no objection, subject to conditions.

 

The Committee was advised that the proposed layout included a pathway linking the proposed development (and in effect, Hampton Park) with Lagan Lands East. The Council’s Access Officer had also advised that the existing route to Galwally Avenue did not have the hallmarks of a public right of way and was unlikely to be asserted as such.

 

The Members were advised that Shared Environmental Services (SES) had completed a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) on 23rd April, 2021 and the consultation response was uploaded on the same date.  The Principal Planning officer explained that SES had concluded that the proposal was unlikely to have a significant effect on any European Site, either alone or in combination with any other plan or project and therefore an appropriate assessment was not required. The HRA form was uploaded to the Planning Portal on 15th September, 2021.

 

It was reported that NIEA Water Management Unit (WMU) had noted , in its previous consultation response of 17th May 2019, that it was content with sewage loading from the proposed development being transferred to the Newtownbreda Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW). It had also advised that it continually reviewed potential impacts to the surface water environment from proposed developments connected to the various WWTWs, including loadings and treatment regimes at those treatment works, as well as considering whether or not the works had been upgraded. Following that review, the WMU was now concerned that the sewage loading associated with the current proposal had the potential to cause an environmental impact if transferred to this WWTW.  WMU had advised that if NI Water confirmed that it was content that both the receiving WWTW and the associated sewer network for the development could take the additional load, with no adverse effect on the WWTW or sewer network’s ability to comply with their Water Order Consents, then WMU had no objection to that aspect of the proposal.  A response from NI Water was received on 8th November, 2021, confirming that there was available capacity at the nearby WWTW.

 

The Principal Planning officer explained that NI Water had advised that an odour assessment was required due to the sites proximity to the operations of the existing Wastewater Treatment Works.

 

The developer had submitted an odour assessment and a letter from NI Water that it had assessed the proposal and it would not raise any objection on the grounds of ‘incompatible development’. The letter was uploaded to the Planning Portal and a further consultation was issued to NI Water. A response was received from NI Water on 10th December 2021, indicating that the odour assessment was “positive” and its recommendation was to approve the application with standard and specific conditions.  Having regard to the advice from NIW, it was considered that the proposed development complied with the tests of Policy WM5 of PPS 11.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Lyons to the meeting.  He advised the meeting that he would request that the Committee would reject the application.  He stated that:

 

·        the site lay within within the Lagan Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Belvoir Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) and a portion of the site was located within an Area of Townscape Character (ATC).  It was also immediately adjacent to Lagan Valley Regional Park (LVRP);

·        the sheer number of objections to the application illustrated the strength of feeling from residents, and the fact that the objections came from a broad area across the city demonstrated that the site was seen as an amenity for the city in terms of accessing the river corridor and a green, unspoilt area;

·        he had concerns regarding the Waste Water management and the proximity to the River Lagan; and

·        he asked that the Committee would consider public path creation agreement(s) in terms of the concerns which had been raised by residents in respect of the connectivity through the site; and

·        the existing junction of Hampton Park and the Ormeau Road was not fit for purpose and the increased demand that the application would place on traffic in the area.

 

In response to a Member’s question, Councillor Lyons highlighted the importance of the pedestrian and active travel routes that existed from Hampton Park and Galwally Avenue through to Belvoir Forest Park and to Lagan Lands East and onto the Lagan Towpath.  He added that a number of local residents maintained the pathways and were quick to tidy up any rubbish left as a result of anti-social behaviour which had taken place during lockdown.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Dr. T. Degenhardt and Mr. D. Smiley, who had objected to the application.

 

            Dr. Degenhardt advised the Committee that:

 

·        the site was within an Area of Outstanding Beauty which were a pristine wildlife sanctuary for badgers and bats, both of which were protected species;

·        the biodiverse area should be protected for future generations and queried how many animals would lose their habitats;

·        the UN had issued a Code Red for humanity;

·        the final number of houses proposed for the site was unclear due to extant permission, but could be for up to 53 large dwellings;

·        the extant permission was granted in 2009 yet the first houses were only constructed on site in April 2021;

·        people were much more aware of climate change now than they were in 2009 and queried whether the 2009 approval could be revised in light of that;

·        the current development contradicted the Council’s Green and Blue Infrastructure plan;

·        the development would have a negative impact on the sewage system;

·        it would also have a negative impact on the traffic in Hampton Park, with potentially up to 100 extra cars;

·        the cumulative impact of the application should be considered in conjunction with the extant planning permission of 2009; and

·        410 objections were listed on the Portal, not 253.

 

            Mr. Smiley advised the Committee that:

 

·        he had grown up and spent his whole life within the area;

·        in 2017 the planning report for the new Stranmillis bridge stated that the Lagan Gateway project would include the provision of a new boat lock at Stranmillis, a new footbridge and a path linking Annadale Embankment with Stranmillis and Belvoir Park;

·        the bridge was opened in September 2021, at a cost of £5million;

·        the Council’s website stated that, “in the near future we hope to develop pathways into Belvoir Forest Park making it more accessible for people on foot or bike”;

·        the current proposal in Hampton Park included a pathway linking the development and, in effect, Hampton Park, with Lagan Lands East; and

·        the pathway from Hampton Park to Galwally Avenue was well-used by local residents and visitors and provided a key access into Belvoir Forest Park, and that the Committee should be mindful of it in terms of the Council’s plan for the area.

 

            In response to a Member’s question, Mr. Smiley reiterated that it would be scandalous for the Council to have invested so much money in the new bridge only for the enhanced recreational and active travel benefits never to materialise.  He stated that, because there was a small obstacle on the path between Galwally Avenue and Hampton Park, legally it was not being classed as a public right of way.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. S. McKee, agent, to the meeting.  He advised the Committee that:

 

·        the application comprised an amendment to house types for an approved 7 dwellings within the extant planning permission for the site, along with an additional 11 dwellings;

·        the site was zoned for housing in draft BMAP and lay outside of the Lagan Valley Regional Park and did not abut the Lagan River;

·        with the exception of a small section, the site lay outside the Hampton Park Area of Townscape Character. However the characteristic tree lined avenue, which was a prominent feature of Hampton Park, had been continued into the development;

·        the site had a long history of planning permissions for residential development going back over 20 years;

·        as identified in the Committee report, a Certificate of Lawful use was granted under the Planning Act, which affirmed the implementation of planning permission Z/2007/1401/F, for 35 dwellings. The development within that permission could therefore be completed at any time and was a material consideration;

·        the proposed change of house types provided a better mix of house types and also permitted access to the wider Lagan Valley Regional Park by providing a housing layout that was visually and physically more permeable and which supported the Phase 2 Lagan Gateway proposals that would provide connectivity to Galwally Avenue and connect into the now completed Phase 1 of the Lagan Gateway project northbound through Lagan Lands East, towards the new Lagan Gateway bridge;

·        a landscape buffer was provided with open space along the western boundary of the site which would assist in the integration of the development into the existing natural landscape and reducing the opportunity for antisocial behaviour;

·         the Key Site Requirement attached to the subject housing zoning proposed a maximum gross density of 15 dwellings per hectare and the proposed scheme was notably below this yield;

·        NI Water, had confirmed that there was available capacity within the water network and serving Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate the development and that there was not considered to be any issue for prospective residents in terms of odour;

·        a number of Habitat Surveys were considered by the statutory authority, DAERA, which had raised no objections and provided a number of recommended conditions. They were also reviewed by Shared Environmental Services, which was satisfied that the development would not impact on protected habitats;

·        the transport analysis submitted with the application considered the impact of all 18 dwellings proposed in the application. DfI Roads had considered the information and the third party representations and it was satisfied that the development would not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic in accordance with PPS3;

·        the current application would improve upon the extant permission by delivering a development which responded more appropriately to the Lagan Valley Regional Park both visually and in terms of connectivity, and complied with the Council’s ambitions in respect of the Lagan Gateway project; and

·        the Council’s Parks team had been in consultation with the Project Architect in respect of the pathway and its location which had been designed to connect with phase 2 of the Lagan Gateway project.

 

            The Chairperson thanked Mr. McKee for his contribution.

 

            In response to a Member’s question for officers, the Principal Planning officer confirmed that NI Water was now satisfied with the proposal with conditions.

 

            In response to a further question from the Member in relation to the public access elements which had been raised by objectors, and whether they could be conditioned as part of an approval, the Principal Planning officer confirmed that if it met the test of a condition then it was deemed reasonable to allow pedestrian access or a right of way.  The Divisional Solicitor added that it was something that officers could investigate and deal with under delegated authority if the Committee was minded to grant the application.  She added that, alternatively, if the Committee felt that the issue was fundamental to its decision, then the application could be deferred to allow officers to consider that and report back.

 

            In response to a further Member’s question, the Principal Planning officer confirmed to the Committee that the entire site was zoned for housing and that the application was therefore compliant with policy.

 

            Moved by Councillor Groogan,

            Seconded by Councillor Matt Collins and

 

          Resolved - That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application in order that officers would investigate whether it is possible to attach a condition or a planning agreement to it, to ensure a right of access through the site for use by the general public.