Agenda item

Minutes:

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and highlighted the following main issues relevant to consideration of the application:

 

·        Principle of a Nursing and Residential Care facility in the location;

·        Flood Risk;

·        Design and Placemaking;

·        Impact on heritage assets;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Climate change;

·        Open space;

·        Access and transport;

·        Health impacts;

·        Environmental protection;

·        Waste-water infrastructure;

·        Natural heritage;

·        Waste management;

·        Section 76 planning agreement; and

·        Pre-Application Community Consultation.

 

            He explained that the application site was within the 1 in 100-year climate change fluvial flood plain and that the proposed use was for bespoke accommodation for vulnerable groups, for which there was a presumption against, within a flood plain.  He stated that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) had been submitted, however, DfI Rivers had not assessed it given that the proposal was not an exception to the policy.  He added that the applicant had submitted a peer review of the FRA which verified its content and conclusions and that officers had no reason to dispute these.

 

            He reported that the application proposed thirty-eight parking spaces, a shortfall of twenty spaces under the parking standards, and that DfI Roads had requested a parking survey which had been submitted by the applicant subsequent to the publication of the Committee report and that DfI Roads had since been reconsulted.

 

            The Planning Manager informed the Committee that an Air Quality Impact Assessment had also been received, subsequent to the report having been published, and accordingly, Environmental Health had been consulted.  He added that NI Water had objected to the application on grounds of insufficient wastewater infrastructure and that no objections had been received from other statutory or non-statutory consultees.

 

            He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission was refused on grounds of flood risk and insufficient parking provision.

 

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. T. Stokes, Mr. G. Yates, and Mr. K. Sommerville, who were representing the applicant, to the meeting.

 

            Mr. Stokes stated that Healthcare Ireland Group was one of the fastest growing healthcare companies in Northern Ireland, which managed twenty-five care facilities and offered professional, high standard care to residents, which included both short-term and long-term care for older people as well as care assistance for people living with dementia, complex needs and palliative care.

 

            He explained that Healthcare Ireland Group employed around 2,300 people and that, in Northern Ireland, there was a demand for over 3,000 beds and that the primary reason for the significant delays in discharge rates across the Belfast Trust was the lack of care home capacity.

 

            He stated that Healthcare Ireland Group would provide care home beds that would reduce pressure on the NHS and hospital settings and pointed out that the application site was ideally located between both the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belfast City Hospital.

 

            He explained that the site was a brownfield derelict site that had been previously developed and located in an interface area which had been subject to anti-social behaviour.  He stated that he believed that the development would remove ongoing issues at the site and had been welcomed by the local community.

 

            Mr. Stokes then addressed the recommended reasons for refusal contained within the report.  He stated that, with regard to the first reason related to flood risk at the site, it would be possible to access and leave the site whilst flooding was occurring, that the Flood Risk Assessment was robust, had been peer reviewed independently and clearly demonstrated that the proposed development did not flood.

 

            With regard to the refusal reason based on insufficient parking, Mr. Stokes stated that a parking survey, which had been submitted, demonstrated that sufficient parking would be available.

 

            He concluded by stating that the proposal represented an overall investment of around £18m from a local healthcare company and would create 150 construction jobs and around 185 full and part time healthcare jobs.  He requested that the Committee approve the application for the following reasons:

 

·        The FRA and independent peer review should satisfy the Committee that the flood risk at the site as a result of the development had been fully taken account of and demonstrated that there was no risk to vulnerable groups;

·        The redevelopment of the site at an interface/flash point area would help eradicate the anti-social behaviour which currently existed at the site;

·        The brownfield site and the proposal incorporated the restoration of the landmark chimney, protecting an historic monument; and

·        That it was well documented that there was a national health crisis and that the site was extremely well placed to assist with freeing up much needed bed spaces within over-subscribed hospitals, therefore alleviating pressure on the NHS.

 

            In response to a question from a Member with regard to potential evacuation of vulnerable people from the site during an unusual flooding event, Mr. Sommerville explained that access would be from the Donegal Road and that the site would be only be subject to shallow flooding and that most of the care home and surrounding area would remain dry.

 

            A Member pointed out that the site was located in a deprived area of the city and asked the representatives how they intended to engage with the local Community.  In response, Mr. Yates, Managing Director, Healthcare Ireland Group, stated that a comparable development, Bradley Manor, was a care home which had won awards for its contribution to the local community and that the organisation offered free training and had an ethos that 80% of the staff should come from the local area in order to provide residents with familiarity and comfort.

 

            In response to a question from a Member, the Planning Manager explained that, since the flood map had been remodelled, it had shown that less of the surrounding land would actually flood during a flood event and that the actual risks to occupants of the site were clear from the FRA.

 

Proposal

 

            Moved by Alderman McCullough,

            Seconded by Alderman Lawlor,

 

      “That the Committee approves the application and grants planning permission, subject to conditions that would include the requirement for a flood evacuation plan and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the Section 76 planning agreement and conditions, resolve the outstanding consultations from DfI Roads and Environmental Health and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.”

 

            On a vote, thirteen Members voted for the proposal and four against and it was declared carried.

 

Supporting documents: