Agenda item

The Principal Planning officer explained that the application had been listed for Committee on 15th June, 2021 but that it had been deferred to allow the Committee to visit the site, which had subsequently taken place on 10th August, 2021. The application was then on the agenda for the Committee on 17th August, 2021, however it was withdrawn from the agenda as amended drawings were submitted late and the proposal description was amended.  Further to this, the application was subsequently refused by the Planning Committee on 21stOctober, 2021 for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the scheme would result in overdevelopment of the site as it failed to provide a quality residential environment for prospective residents due to inadequate and inappropriate public and private amenity space; and

2.     The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the proposed amenity space would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on proposed residents by way of noise and nuisance.

The Committee was advised that amended drawings had been submitted by the applicant on 22nd October, 2021, the day after the October Committee meeting.  The drawings included the reduction by one residential unit and the addition of a roof terrace on the thirdfloor.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that the Planning Department had sought legal advice regarding the submission of the drawings.  Whilst the amendments addressed the refusal reasons in respect of the provision of amenity space, additional concerns had been raised regarding personal safety and overlooking. She explained that while there was no legislative provision to require the Council to consider amended plans at any point in the planning process, the Council was duty bound to have regard to all material considerations. Therefore, she explained that the amended drawings had addressed the Council’s concerns with regard to proposed amenity space, in accordance with the guidance in Creating Places.

She explained that the additional concerns in relation to overlooking and personal safety were not considered to be insurmountable, and that the agent had submitted further amended drawings to address those concerns. The Members were advised that the amended drawings were uploaded to the Planning Portal on 4thFebruary 2022. The amended application was subsequently re-advertised in the press, additional neighbour notification had been undertaken and the Conservation Area Officer (CAO) had been reconsulted.

The Members were advised that the provision of the roof terrace would result in an additional 40 square metres of amenity space within the proposed development. The reduction in the number of units would also result in a reduction in the quantity of amenity space required. The overall amenity space provision was now 177 square metres, equating to 11.8 sq metres per unit.  As per the previous Addendum report, the Principal Planning officer outlined that, as the application site was located within an inner urban location, it was therefore accepted that amenity space of 10 sq metres per unit was acceptable.  Additionally, the addition of the third floor roof terrace offered additional choice and space for prospective residents. She outlined that, given that the proposal now complied with the guidelines of Creating Places, it was considered that the proposed amenity space was now acceptable.

            The Committee was advised that one additional objection had been received in respect of the proposal. It stated that the buildings within the existing terrace were originally residential in the form of individual dwelling and that the residential aspect had been entirely removed and was of no comparable form in the latest proposals.  The Principal Planning officer explained that Nos. 25 and 27 University Road had been in use as a restaurant for a significant period of time, prior to the fire and that the earliest planning permissions in relation to that use dated back to the 1980s.

            The Conservation Area officer had been reconsulted and had recommended that, ideally, the ground floor restoration should be based on accurate historical record.  The Principal Planning officer explained that while the comments in relation to the ground floor were noted, it was acknowledged that those points had not been made previously and that the application was now at an advanced stage of the process.  The Conservation officer’s suggestions regarding the style and material of rooflights and dormers on the front elevation

were noted, however, and the Members were advised that appropriate conditions could be imposed in the event of approval.

            Finally, the Principal Planning officer explained that a Section 76 Planning Agreement would be necessary as part of any approval, as no parking was provided for the scheme. She explained that it would secure a Travel Plan to provide membership of a Car Club, membership of Belfast Bikes and travel cards for 3 years. The Committee was advised that the agreement would also secure a façade retention system to ensure that the building fabric, which was important to the appearance of the Conservation Area, was secured during construction, retained and repaired where necessary.

The Chairperson put the officers recommendation to the Committee, namely, to grant approval to the applications, subject to conditions and a Section 76 Planning Agreement and to give delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of any conditions and the Section 76 Agreement.  On a vote, ten Members voted for the proposal, with 2 no votes, and it was carried.