Agenda item

The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and highlighted the following key areas for consideration:

·        Principle of housing at the location;

·        Affordable housing;

·        Demolition of existing building;

·        Housing density;

·        Housing mix;

·        Adaptable and accessible accommodation;

·        Design and placemaking;

·        Impact on heritage assets;

·        Climate change;

·        Residential quality and impact on amenity;

·        Access and transport;

·        Environmental protection;

·        Flood risk and drainage;

·        Waste-water infrastructure;

·        Waste management;

·        Natural heritage; and

·        Section 76 Planning Agreement.

            He referred the Committee to the applicant’s justification for demolition of the existing building and the viability assessment which had been submitted that outlined various potential options to retain and convert the existing building to other uses, which made the case that retention of the existing building was not feasible.

            He explained that, since the publication of the report, NI Water had submitted a response which advised that further engagement with the applicant was required in order to address network capacity issues and advised that, the issues raised by NI Water had been addressed within the report.

            He informed the Committee that six further objections had been received and he summarised the issues which had been raised.

            He reported that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and the agreed Section 76 planning agreement to secure a viability review of the scheme, prior to commencement.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. E. Morgan, Agent, Mr. K. Campbell and Mr. J. Campbell, Applicants, and Mr. M. Donnelly, Quantity Surveyor, to the meeting.

            Mr. Morgan explained that he was engaged by the applicants, a father and son team, in 2020 and that a PAD had been submitted to the Planning Service who had stated that the principle of development on the site was acceptable and subsequent to the advice, the applicants had purchased the site.

            He stated that a design team had been appointed to explore development options for the site and that the initial brief had been to work with the existing structure.

            He stated that, in an attempt to retain the building, the design team had exhausted many options, which included conversion to a single-family dwelling, subdivision into two, four and five residential apartments and consideration given to other uses, that included short term rented accommodation and office use, however, all had been deemed unviable.

            He outlined some of the issues which had contributed to the aforementioned options having been deemed unviable.

            Mr. Morgan explained that the building had previous approval for demolition and provision of 14 apartments and had been declared unsuitable for listed status as it was not located within a conservation area and how the proposed redevelopment would make best use of architectural salvage and derelict building materials such as red brick, stone cills and roof tiles for incorporation into the new building.

            He stated that, without redevelopment, the property would remain vacant and unused and, given the increased demand for housing, the proposal would provide fourteen high quality, sustainable homes.

            He stated that the planning process had been lengthy and costly process and that building costs had increased substantially which had affected the overall development viability.  He asked the Committee to accept the recommendation to approve the application.

            A number of Members raised questions with regard to the viability options that would retain the original building or façade,

            A Member asked Mr. M. Doherty, Naylor Devlin, who was in attendance at the meeting, if he had seen an alternative option that would retain the building façade.  Mr. Doherty said that he had not seen such an option.

            The Planning Manager explained that the viability option information that had been received was high level and had not been scrutinised.  He added that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application based on viability issues and reminded the Committee that the application site was not in a protected area.

Proposal 1

            Moved by Councillor T. Brooks,

            Seconded by Councillor Hanvey,

“The building at 18 Annadale Avenue, whilst not listed or in a conservation area, makes a positive contribution to its existing built environment.

Policy ENV2 states that development proposals should, where feasible, seek to avoid demolition and should consider how existing buildings or their main structures could be reused.

If demolished the embodied carbon in the existing building will be lost and the built heritage of Annadale Avenue will be chipped away further.

The committee therefore does not agree to the demolition of this building and refuses planning permission.”

            Upon hearing the undernoted proposal from Councillor Groogan, Councillor T. Brooks withdrew her proposal.

Proposal 2

            Moved by Councillor Groogan,

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett, and

      Resolved – “That consideration of the application is deferred to allow the applicant to provide further viability information regarding options to retain the original building.