Agenda item

            The Planning Manager outlined the application to the Committee and explained that it was an application which sought approval of the details pursuant to the outline planning permission and that the principle of development was established through the outline permission.

            He stated that the Committee’s consideration was limited to the evaluation and acceptability of the following reserved matters:

·        Siting;

·        Design;

·        External appearance;

·        Means of access; and

·        Landscaping.

            He explained that Condition 5 required that the shoulder heights of the building should be no higher than on drawing number 10A and that the reserved matters were within those parameters.  He added that a condition to require the provision and retention of the amenity area was recommended.

            He reported that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the reserved matters were considered acceptable and that it was recommended that the reserved matters were approved.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. S. Beattie KC, Mr. P. Stinson and Mr. M. Gordon to the meeting.

            Mr Beattie stated that it would be remiss not to acknowledge the detailed engagement of the Council officers in the design process at the outline application stage, which was reflected int eh outline condition five, that firmly framed the scale and massing of the building.

            He stated that the Plan Strategy had also been considered as part of the detailed design of the development and that the proposal provided a variety of types and sizes of units in accordance with the requirements of HOU 6 and all units had been designed to ensure they were adaptable and accessible throughout all stages of life in accordance with HOU 7.

            He explained that the amenity space provision for the development was controlled by the building’s envelope which was fixed at outline stage and the provision was inclusive of a gym, break out areas and two external terrace areas.  He added that the noise levels associated with these areas and their potential impact on adjacent residential properties had been fully considered by Environmental Health and were considered acceptable, subject to mitigation, controlled by conditions.

            He concluded by stating that the issue of affordable housing was the subject of careful consideration by the Committee at the outline stage and that the application had been deferred to seek further advice from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on the matter, and that having considered that advice, the Committee had declined to impose conditions on that issue.

            In response to a query from a Member with regard to amenity space, the Planning Manager explained that it was not unusual for a city centre development to have a lower than 10 metre average amenity space, regard was also had to the proximity of local play parks. On balance, the level of amenity space was considered acceptable.

Proposal

            Moved by Alderman McCullough,

            Seconded by Alderman Lawlor,

      “That the application be refused on the grounds of a lack of amenity space and housing mix.”

            On a vote by show of hands, eight Members voted for the proposal and nine against and it was declared lost.

            Accordingly, the Chairperson put the officer recommendation to the Committee and the Committee approved the reserved matters and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions, subject to the resolution of outstanding issues which had been raised by DfI Roads, and to deal with any other matters that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.