Agenda item

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application.

 

            She drew the Committee’s attention to the large number of Late items which had been received in respect of the application.  She explained that letters of support had been received from Newington Housing Association and the Housing Executive’s Belfast Region Place Shaping Team.  The Committee was advised that officers were supportive of social housing but that the scheme should meet the tests of PPS7 QD1.

 

            The Agent had also submitted correspondence, stating that no feedback had been provided to them; that the refusal reasons included parking issues as well as an impact on trees and that they struggled to understand how the Council had reached that conclusion with DFI Roads and Tree Officer responses still outstanding; that the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement which had been submitted on 8th February had not yet been reviewed; they disputed the density figures in the report; and q request for the application to be withdrawn from the Planning Committee.

 

            In response, the Principal Planning officer explained that the application had been the subject of a Pre Application Discussion for a class C3 use – assisted living.  The concerns with the application under consideration had also been raised at the PAD despite the change from class C3 to C1 use.  She advised the Members that no DFI Roads or parking refusal reasons were proposed and that reference to parking in the refusal reasons was in respect of the layout being dominated by parking, which would contribute to, alongside other concerns, a poor quality living environment for prospective residents.  Regarding the trees, she stated that an Arboricultural report had not been requested.  Instead, the agent was asked to forward the survey that was used to inform the condition of trees on the tree constraints map but that no report was produced.  The Tree officer had since considered the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement and had made a number of recommendations and had subsequently requested the removal of refusal reason 4 regarding the impact to trees to be removed.

 

            In relation to density, she advised the Committee that the report, at 9.14, should in fact read “The density of the proposal site would equate to 110 dwelling units per hectare.  This is nearly double the highest existing density in the area”.

 

            In respect of further comments which had been submitted by the agent as part of the Late Items report, she advised the Committee that NI Water had recommended a refusal and that the Council owned and maintained Alexandra Park.  The agent had stated that there was sufficient communal open space provided and that the site was located adjacent to Alexandra Park.  In response, the Principal Planning officer highlighted that officers considered the amenity provision to be insufficient both in quality and quantum, as per the case officer report.

 

The Committee was advised that a consultation response was received from DFI Roads on 10th February.  It had reiterated its request for a Travel Plan.  On 14th March the applicant submitted a Travel Plan which included that each apartment would be offered and provided:

 

·        a Metro Travel Card for 3 years, 100% subsidy;

·        a Car Club Membership for 3 years, 50% subsidy; and

·        Belfast Bike Scheme Membership for 3 years, 100% subsidy.

 

The Committee was advised that, if approval was to be granted to the application, a Section 76 Agreement would be required to secure the green travel measures, subject to DFI Roads comments.

 

            The agent had submitted an amended layout and elevations, detailing the following points:

 

·        contrary to the Development Management Report, the density of the scheme (91.6 dwellings per hectare) was lower than the surrounding residential area (111.2 dph) and was not therefore out of character. Notably, the Council’s Local Development Plan Draft Plan Strategy, which was a material consideration, contained Policy HOU4 which indicated that in inner city areas a minimum density of 75 dph and a maximum of 150 dph would be appropriate;

·        an additional 96.1sqm of green amenity space was being provided, resulting in a total of 263.1sqm of amenity space to serve the 11 apartments. That equated to 23.9sqm per apartment, far in excess of the minimum standard of 10sqm as set out in Creating Places; 

·        the additional amenity space was located to the east of the site complimenting the space already proposed to the west of the site;

·        as the amenity space was now both east and west facing and as the building stood off the proposed boundaries there would be no unacceptable overshadowing of the amenity space;

·        the parking layout had been reorientated to reduce alleged dominance and provide for the additional amenity space. One space per apartment remained as did a disabled space to serve the complex needs apartment;

·        amended fenestration to the southern elevation nearest to existing residential dwellings, comprising a cantilevered bay window to the first and second floor apartments with obscure glazing facing the dwellings opposite and clear glazing for outlook at the sides to prevent direct line of sight while maintaining adequate day light and views over the open space;

·        Creating Places stated that “a separation distance greater than 20m will generally be appropriate to minimise overlooking… And that greater flexibility will generally be appropriate in assessing the separation distance for apartments and infill housing schemes in urban locations and higher density areas”;

·        the planning history advocated a 2.5 storey block;

·        the application addressed unmet social need; and

·        it included the regeneration of brownfield site.

 

In response, the Principal Planning officer outlined to the Committee that:

 

·        the agent’s amenity space calculations included paths around the building which was wrong.  The total amenity space was approximately 180 sqm. That equated to approximately 16 sqm per unit. The key here was the provision of ‘private open space’, as per ‘Creating Places’, as the additional amenity space provided was not private. The site sat within a residential area where the character was that of dwellings enjoying private amenity space.  The desire for private open space in apartment developments was highlighted by the Planning Appeals Commission in their report on an appeal against the refusal of permission for an apartment scheme on Eia Street;

·        in respect of the relationship of the building to the proposed amenity space - to the west, the space was sandwiched between the building and the boundary of the site and adjacent trees, the overall quality of the space provided was therefore questionable.  Each area would be overshadowed by the scale of the building due to the orientation. The additional amenity space was sandwiched between a 3 storey building and high boundary trees and would be completely overshadowed in the evening by the building;

·        the amenity space had been provided at the cost of a turning area and the re-positioning of two parking spaces;

·        the windows had not been removed and remained at first and second floor level, giving the perception of being overlooked. As those windows were located in habitable rooms (kitchen/dining area) it would be unreasonable to use obscure glazing or to secure by a planning condition. Irrespective of the introduction of obscured glazing on two windows the first and second floor windows on the southern elevation facing directly onto the rear of the two closest dwellings remain unchanged.

·        whilst a  20m separation distance was generally accepted, in this case officers considered it to be insufficient. It was a three storey apartment block in the immediate backland of 3 residential dwellings, with habitable second floor windows overlooking the rear of adjacent housing. Flexibility could be applied in higher density areas but not to the extent whereby a window at approximately 7.5m above ground level overlooked an adjacent dwelling;

·        proximity to open space did not outweigh the need for adequate and appropriate amenity space on-site;

·        8 units were previously permitted as an Outline in principle only, not 11;

·        it was acknowledged that it was in an area of housing need but, as the proposal failed to meet specific planning policy requirements it did not meet regional planning policy; and

·        whilst regeneration was welcomed, it should be in a manner that was appropriate to the site and the existing context.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. G. McGill, agent, Mr. R. Dougan, architect, and Mr. B. Kerr, Apex housing, to the meeting.  Together they advised the Committee that:

 

·        an additional 96sq metres of amenity space was provided, totaling 263sq metres on site, which equated to 23.9sq metres per apartment and was therefore far in excess of the minimum standards in Creating Places;

·        the parking layout had been redesigned;

·        obscured glazing was proposed in parts to mitigate against the possibility of overlooking;

·        there were many other 2.5 storey buildings in the immediate vicinity;

·        they queried how the Council had calculated the density of the site, as they calculated it as 91 dwellings per hectare, while the density of the surrounding area ranged from 77 to 233 dwellings per hectare;

·        North Belfast was the area of greatest housing need in the City, with 2906 applicants on the waiting list; and

·        singles and small families accounted for 75% of that waiting list.

 

            A Member thanked the representatives for their presentation.  He stated that he had attended the site visit in respect of the application and queried why they had included 11 car parking spaces as part of the scheme.

 

            In response, Mr. McGill explained that the site was within an inner city area and there would usually be a greater amount of parking required but that the site’s proximity to transport links justified the reduced level of parking.  He added that they felt that the new layout had addressed officers’ concerns in terms of creating more amenity space.

 

            A further Member queried why the application included no private amenity space for residents.  In response Mr. McGill explained that it was felt that the open space to the east and the west of the site was adequate and compliant with policy, and that while they acknowledged that the planners had stated that the site’s proximity to Alexandra Park did not justify a lower level of open space within the development, Mr. McGill was aware of numerous examples whereby a reduced level of open space had been deemed acceptable because of their proximity to existing areas of open space.  Mr. Dougan added that the site was bounded by Alexandra Park on three sides.

 

            In response to a Member’s question regarding overshadowing, Mr. Dougan advised the Committee that the amenity spaces to both the east and the west of the building would give the residents options for both morning and evening sunshine, which was better than the nearby houses which had north facing gardens.

 

            A Member stated that comparing the application with terraced housing which was built a number of years ago was not an adequate level of ambition for modern day residential accommodation.

 

            In response to a further Member’s question, Mr. McGill stated that officers had not provided their calculations in regards to the stated levels of density, and that they disputed them as they were very different to their own figures. He added that he was happy to share their calculations with the Committee as they were confident in them.

 

            A Member asked officers what they would have liked to have seen in the application in terms of amenity space.  In response, the Principal Planning officer outlined that the Eia Street Planning Appeals Commission decision had illustrated that amenity space had to be of quality and not just of quantity.  She explained that the building in the application would largely overshadow both areas of amenity space provided for quite a period of the day and, given that all residents were relying on that space because there was no private amenity space, it did not constitute a quality living environment.  She added that officers had considered the plot ratio of the building to the site and had concluded that two sides of the building would have an outlook onto hardstanding areas and to the backs of other buildings.  In relation to the density query, she stated that the proposed density was much higher than the surrounding area as it comprised dwelling houses and the application was a high density apartment block.    

 

            A Member asked the agent whether they would consider removing some car parking spaces in order to explore the creation of additional amenity space.  Mr. Dougan explained that one space per unit had been requested by the client.

 

            In regards to the amenity space, Mr. Dougan advised that Creating Places provided that “private communal open space was acceptable in the form of landscaped areas, courtyards or roof gardens at a minimum of 10 – 30 sq metres per unit, where the appropriate level was to be determined for the particular context and design concept.”  In response to a further Member’s question, he clarified that the areas would be screened by a boundary.

 

            In response to a Member’s question as to whether they would reconsider the number of car parking spaces which would be provided, in order to address the amenity space issues, Mr. McGill confirmed that they would.  

 

            A number of Members stated that there were other concerns with the application which would not be addressed by the reconfiguration of the parking spaces, including the density, the layout of the hardstanding, the overshadowing of the amenity space, the obscured glazing of the windows and that there was a statutory objection from NI Water.  They stated that it was important that the applicant was aware that those issues would remain of concerns to other Members.

 

            Moved by Councillor Murphy,

            Seconded by Councillor Maskey and

 

            Resolved -  that the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to allow the applicant to reconsider the number of parking spaces provided within the development with a view to addressing amenity concerns.