Agenda item

            The Planning Manager outlined the planning history of the application and explained that a Pre-Action Protocol letter had been received by the Council in February, 2025 which set out a range of concerns, that included the adequacy of the consultation process, that objections from local residents had not been adequately reported to the Committee, the interpretation of planning policy and procedural matters.

            He explained that, due to concerns raised over procedural matters, the application was being reported back to the Committee, that included the opportunity for a deputation from the Donegall Pass Residents Association to make representations to the Committee.

            He provided an overview of the application and highlighted the consultations responses that included a further response from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) in which it objected to the amended description of a fully social housing scheme and maintained its position that the scheme should provide no more than 80% of the residential units as social housing to avoid a mono-tenure and to promote sustainable and balanced communities.

            The Planning Manager referred to the addendum Committee report which included an updated assessment of the scheme that addressed a proposal for mono-tenure housing and whether it would deliver sustainable and balanced communities.  He stated that the advice of the NIHE, as the housing authority, should be given due weight and pointed out that it was unsupportive of a 100% social housing scheme.  He added that the applicant had not provided evidence that a mixed tenure scheme would not be viable but stated that a stipulation that all 104 residential units must be provided as social housing could result in deliverability issues.

            He stated that it was recommended that planning permission was granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and that the social housing requirement be set at a maximum of 84 units (80%), with the potential allowance of up to 100% social housing, should the issues be satisfactorily addressed at a future point and subject to approval by the Council, in consultation with NIHE.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. P. O Muirigh, Mr. E. Purvis and Mr. P. McDonald to the meeting.

            Mr. McDonald referred to a local resident who had a high needs autistic son who had been greatly affected by the demolition works that had taken place on site and explained that she had asked him to communicate to the Committee that the site was 50 metres from their residence and would have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of her son.

            Mr. Purvis explained the strong opposition from the local community to the proposed development, that included a petition of opposition that had been signed by 462 local residents, he said equated to every household within the district declaring opposition to the current plans.

            He stated that there had been 52 comments of objection posted on the online Planning Portal, with no comments in support of the scheme and that local residents had attended two public consultation meetings to convey their concerns and objections.

            He stated that the social housing apartment cluster blocks had proven to be a failure in inner city Belfast and that the residents of Donegall Pass wished to place on record their support for the correct type of social housing, such as low-level streets of two and three bedroom family houses that would complement the surrounding housing in the area.

            Mr. Purvis outlined points which had been made by the Lower Ormeau Residents Action Group (LORAG) to Clanmil Housing and referred the Committee to an article in the Belfast Telegraph about major builds adjacent to working class communities, he asked the Committee to have regard to the settled communities who would be affected most by the development and to reject the planning application.

            Mr. McDonald stated that the residents of Donegall Pass were in favour of social and affordable housing and had waited for 43 years for sustainable housing in the area, that the proposal was unsustainable and had been developed without any meaningful engagement with the community and asked the Committee to defer consideration and undertake a site visit to the application site to gain a better appreciation of the residents’ concerns.

            The Planning Manager explained that the location of the site compound was not something that the Planning Service would address but could discuss the concerns raised with the applicant.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. T. Stokes to the Committee who attended in representation of the applicant.

            Mr. Stokes stated that Genova North West had acquired the site with the objective of bringing forward, in conjunction with Clanmil Housing Association, a pragmatic scheme aimed at tackling the growing social housing need in the locality.

            He explained that, initially, the suggested housing mix had included a sizable proportion of one-bedroom units, however, through active engagement with the community, the proposals had been revised to reduce the number of smaller units and increase the number of larger units, that included own door family maisonettes.

            He stated that the scheme provided for 104no units which had been broken down into five distinct blocks and set with generous landscaped amenity courtyards for the active and passive enjoyment of residents.

            Mr. Stokes stated that the proposed buildings scaled down in height towards the rear of the site which would be gable ended and no greater than three storeys in height and that separation distances had been maintained through location of the parking area to the rear of the site.  He added that the final design feature to the rear was at the request of the neighbouring community and that the number of window openings had been minimised.

            He explained that the proposal was initially for a 100% social housing scheme that would cater for a mix of General Needs and CAT1 accommodation; however, this had been amended during the course of the application to allow for ongoing discussions between the applicant, the housing association and the Housing Executive in terms of final tenure mix.

            He pointed out that the subject site straddled two Housing Needs Areas, the Donegall Road Housing Needs Area and the Lower Ormeau Housing Needs Area, and he highlighted the increase in housing need in comparison with allocations.

            He concluded by stating that the intention remained for the full scheme to be social housing and that with the support of the Planning Service and NIHE and that a proposed clause on the Section 76 planning agreement would secure a minimum of 80% of the scheme being social with the potential of becoming 100%, following discussions and he asked the Committee to endorse the officers’ recommendation.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Magee

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett,

“That the application is approved on the basis that all 104 residential units be provided as social rented housing (100%) and that this shall be secured by the Section 76 planning agreement.

That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they are not substantive.”

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

            Accordingly, the Committee affirmed its decision of 10th December, 2024, to approve the application, subject to conditions and on the basis that all 104 residential units shall be provided as social rented housing (100%) and that this shall be secured by the Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Committee delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement and deal with any other matters that might arise, provided that they were not substantive