Agenda item

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·         129 third party objections had been received;

·         The scheme was compliant with Policy HOU10 in that the 10% threshold for HMOs on that stretch of the Rosetta Road has not yet been reached;

·         There was sufficient provision for bin storage whilst retaining sufficient amenity space;

·         Ground floor to be retained as commercial;

·         The ground floor retail extension was acceptable in principle; and

·         DfI Roads had no concerns in terms of traffic and parking.

            She stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. P. Bradshaw MLA to the meeting, who attended in objection to the application.

            Ms. Bradshaw explained that she was representing 129 objectors.  She stated that it was an area of historic flooding and that the existing drainage infrastructure was overburdened and could not sustain additional demand and pointed out that NI Water had recommended refusal for those reasons.

            She highlighted issues with regard to transport, parking and traffic, stating that no additional parking had been provided for within the proposal.

            She stated that, in terms of overcrowding, the application site was the equivalent to a typical three-bed semi-detached house, however, the proposal was for more units than the property’s footprint could accommodate.

            She stated that the objectors were of the opinion that the location was unsuitable and the design was out of character with the surrounding properties.  She explained that the area was typically quiet family orientated neighbourhood, with long term residents, and that residents had concerns with regard to noise, antisocial behaviour, transient occupation, disruption to the community cohesion, and feared that approval of the application would set a precedent within a traditionally residential area.

            In response to a question from a Member with regard to the flooding history of the application site, Mr. C. Heath, who was in attendance for DfI Rivers, explained that applications are assessed on the sources of flooding and from the evidence provided.  The source was out of sewer flooding from the drainage network which lay outside the site boundary.  He stated that there was a small evidence of surface water flooding on the site, however, it was not significant enough to trigger a drainage assessment and pointed out that the revised site layout had provided soft landscaping which would aid in the mitigation of surface water runoff.

            In response to a Member’s question Mr. Heath confirmed that, if the proposal was to proceed, it would provide an improvement to the surface water drainage.

            A Member asked Ms. C. Purvis, who was in attendance for DfI Roads, to outline why DfI Roads had stated that the parking provision within the proposal was adequate.  Ms. Purvis explained that two parking surveys had been undertaken which indicated that available parking had been more than sufficient.  The Member stated that she had attended a site visit at the application site and was not of the opinion that there was adequate parking provision and that the quality of the design was not in keeping with the existing context as the extension sat significantly forward of the existing building line and that there was known historical flooding at the application site.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor T. Brooks,

            Seconded by Councillor Brennan, and

                   Resolved - “That the Committee refuses to grant planning permission on the basis that the design of the proposal was not complementary to the surrounding area and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the reasons for refusal.”