Agenda item

(Councillor Hutchinson left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with the details of the application and application LA04/2020/2325/F, which was also on the agenda and was inter-related.

He explained that the application, along with associated applications LA04/2019/0082/F and LA04/2019/0083/F, had been considered by the Planning Committee in December 2019. The Committee had resolved to approve all three applications subject to conditions and a Section 76 Planning Agreement. The planning agreement was intended to secure the following:

·        a developer contribution of £52,000 for enhancement works at the King George V Playing Fields;

·        securing the 12 apartments as affordable housing; and

·        ensuring the delivery and ongoing maintenance of the proposed pocket park to be provided as part of the development of the 12 apartments.

He reported that, since the applications had been approved by the Planning Committee, both the Planning Service and Legal Services had made significant efforts to finalise the Section 76 Planning Agreement.  However, it had not been possible to progress it with the applicant. Firstly, it was disputed that the 12 apartments should be delivered as affordable housing, despite it being central to the consideration of the planning balance and justification for the grant of planning permission, the proposal being contrary to Policy OS 1 of PPS 8 through the loss of Open Space. Secondly, and more recently, by failure to commit to the delivery of the pocket park, which was essential recreation space to off-set the lack of amenity space within the proposed development, as well as to help compensate for the loss and limited provision of Open Space overall. He stated that officers considered the terms of the planning agreement originally agreed by the Committee to be wholly reasonable. The Members were reminded that the Section 54 applications, LA04/2019/0082/F and LA04/2019/0083/F, had been withdrawn by the applicant as they were no longer required. He stated that officers advised that the application could not be separated out from the agreement.

The Committee was provided with the planning history of the site.  In June 2011, permission had been granted on the site and adjacent land to the east where the Maple Leaf Club was originally located for mixed use development comprising 21 dwellings and a replacement social club (Z/2010/0434/F). The original permission included conditions requiring the provision of social housing and the build out of the replacement social club, required to offset the loss of open space. Those conditions were subsequently varied under applications Z/2011/0827/F and Z/2011/0829/F.

Planning application LA04/2015/0075/F was granted in February 2016 for modifications to the original scheme, for the replacement of the Maple Leaf Club and the erection of 21 dwellings (Z/2010/0434/F). The amended scheme reduced the size of the club and amended some of the house types.  Condition 2 prevented occupation of the residential units until the replacement Maple Leaf Club had been erected in accordance with the new approved plans. Condition 3 required that the development would be delivered as social / affordable housing. The Planning Manager advised that it appeared that the main site access and part of the access road had been constructed and therefore, it was considered that the development had commenced and represented a fall-back for the developer, albeit it would require the construction of the replacement social club.

In 2019, the applicant had applied for permission for 12 apartments on the land where the replacement social club was to be built (LA04/2019/0081/F). Two associated applications were submitted at the same time seeking removal of the conditions requiring the construction of the replacement social club attached to planning permissions Z/2010/0434/F and LA04/2015/0075/F (LA04/2019/0082/F and LA04/2019/0083/F respectively).  He explained that all three applications were approved by the Planning Committee in December 2019, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 76 Planning Agreement.

In terms of the original planning permission for the erection of 21 dwellings and replacement social club on the application site and adjacent land (Z/2010/0434/F) and subsequent modifications (planning permissions Z/2011/0827/F, Z/2011/0829/F and LA04/2015/0075), those were considered to have commenced by virtue of the formation of the access and road. Therefore, the applicant had a fall-back position, albeit the housing development could not be occupied without the delivery of the community building as previously granted. 

The Committee was advised that a further application for 21 dwellings on the adjacent land had been submitted by the landowner and Housing Association (LA04/2020/2325/F). That application was being considered subsequent to this one due to the linked nature of the applications. He explained that that application was also for affordable housing and was being brought forward by a Housing Association with funding support from NIHE.  NIHE had advised that in order to secure the funding from this year’s housing programme, planning permission would need to be granted by 31st March 2022 although it might still be possible to progress the scheme with a resolution from the Council to grant permission.  The Committee was asked to note that application LA04/2020/2325/F was reliant on application LA04/2019/0081/F being progressed to approval, as it was reliant on the pocket park being granted planning permission.  He outlined that it would serve not only the proposed 12 apartments but also the proposed 21 dwellings (as well as other surrounding housing).

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, where the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) had advised that it was supportive of the application.  The NIHE had stated that the site was located within the Middle East Housing Need Area which had a five year need for 307 units for the period 2021-2026.

            The Planning Manager explained that the applicants had also confirmed their agreement to the inflationary uplift (Consumer Price Index linked) to the £52,000 Financial Developer Contribution towards enhancements at the King George V Playing Fields.

In relation to the delivery and ongoing maintenance of the pocket park, the Planning Manager explained that it was essential to off-set the substandard level of amenity within the proposed 12 apartments, as well as to help off-set the loss of open space and the lack of open space within the wider development. 

            In response to a Member’s question as to why the original Section 76 Planning Agreement terms could not been met by the developer, the Planning Manager explained to the Committee that the reasoning was set out in the Committee report. While they appreciated that it was not an ideal scenario, officers were nevertheless keen to see the applications progressed given that they would deliver significant benefits to the area, including much needed quality social housing.

After discussion, the Committee granted approval to the application with conditions and subject to a Section 76 Planning Agreement to secure the following:

·        a developer contribution of £52,000 for enhancement works at the King George V playing fields – the value of the contribution would be subject to an inflationary uplift for the period from December 2019;

·        securing the 12 apartments as affordable housing in perpetuity; and

·        ensuring the delivery and ongoing maintenance of the proposed pocket park to be provided prior to occupation of any of the approved 12 apartments.

Delegated authority was given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions and the Section 76 Planning Agreement.  If the Section 76 was not signed and completed within 3 months, the application would be reported back to the Committee.