Agenda item

            The Planning Manager (Development Management) outlined the application to the Committee, upon which consideration had been deferred at its meetings in March, April and June, 2025, and explained that the applicant had provided a viability assessment which demonstrated that the scheme would not remain viable if affordable housing was provided.  He reported that the viability assessment had been independently appraised by Naylor Devlin, acting on behalf of the Council, which confirmed that the scheme would be unviable.

            He informed the Committee that the applicant had agreed to a viability review mechanism which would reappraise the viability of the scheme prior to commencement of development that would be secured by a Section 76 planning agreement, which had been agreed in principle.

            He reported that it was the view of officers that Policy ENV2 was satisfied and that the applicant had demonstrated that it was not feasible to retain the existing building from a viability perspective, and that retention of the original building would restrict access to the rear.

            The Planning Manager explained that the applicant had provided viability information regarding different options to retain the existing building which concluded that retention was unviable, and having regard to the independent appraisal which confirmed unviability, demolition was considered acceptable.

            He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission was 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 Ms. H. Warner to the meeting, attending in objection to the application.

            Ms. Warner explained that she resided in a neighbouring property and had concerns with regard to the potential impact of the proposed development.  She stated that the proposal would lead to loss of light, overshadowing and result in the removal of established trees and vegetation to the rear of the site.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. E. Morgan, Planning Agent, speaking on behalf of the applicant, to the meeting.  Mr. Morgan stated that a pre-application discussion had been submitted to the Council in October, 2020 and that the Council had confirmed that the principle of development was acceptable on the site and based on that guidance, the applicant proceeded to purchase the property. 

            He stated that the appointed design team had explored a range of development options with the initial brief to retain, extend and repurpose the existing building, however, those options proved unviable.

            He stated that all options had been independently verified by Naylor Devlin and concluded that retention was not viable, however, the applicants had committed to use sustainability principles by salvaging materials such as red brick and roof tiles for reuse in the proposed development.

            He highlighted that the existing building was not listed or located within a conservation area and that a previous planning approval for demolition and redevelopment for 14 apartments was granted in 2009.  He pointed out that current regulations would permit demolition without the requirement of planning consent.

            He stated that the proposal would reconfigure the site layout to enhance the public realm and outlined the planning history and associated costs.  He explained that the retention was not feasible, demonstrated by robust evidence and that the refusal would discourage developers and investors in a time when house building should be encouraged.

            In response to a question from a Member with regard to the social housing element of the viability options, the Planning Manager explained that Policy HOU5 permitted case specific assessments where a scheme had not proven viable.

            A Member indicated that she was not content with the proposed demolition, despite the building not having been in a conservation area or listed, as it did make a positive contribution of significant character to Annadale Avenue.  She referred to the officer’s report and pointed out that advice had been sought from DfC HED at the Pre-Application Discussion stage and that HED had stated “the existing building, Busy Bees, contributes significant character to Annadale Avenue and HED advises that it is a prime candidate for local listing” and she explained that the existing building’s architectural features were of historical value.

            She added that the proposed replacement building was significantly larger and did not sit well within the context of the area.  She referred to Policy ENV2, stating that proposals should seek to avoid demolition and reuse existing structures as far as possible and that proposal to recycle material would not mitigate the loss of the building in terms of its contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor T. Brooks,

            Seconded by Councillor Hanvey,

“That the Committee refuses to grant planning permission on the basis that the existing building contributes significant character to the surrounding area.”

Amendment

            Moved by Alderman McCullough,

            Seconded by Councillor Doran,

“That planning permission is granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement to secure a viability review.”

            On a vote, six Members voted for the amendment and twelve against and it was declared lost.

            The original proposal standing in the name of Councillor T. Brooks was put to the meeting, with twelve Members voting for and six against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee agreed to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the reasons for refusal.