Agenda item

            The Principal Planning Manager provided an overview of the application to the Committee and outlined the following key issues:

·         Principle of residential dwellings at this location;

·         Impact on existing residential;

·         Housing density;

·         Adaptable and accessible accommodation;

·         Design;

·         Amenity space;

·         Overshadowing;

·         Overlooking;

·         Access and parking;

·         Waste management;

·         Landscaping and trees;

·         Topography of the site; and

·         Climate change.

            She reported that 16 third party objections had been received and considered and stated that the proposal would result in the loss of open space, contrary to Policy OS1.

            She stated that the proposal was not considered to be in conformity with the character of the area and would conflict with adjacent uses and appear overly dominant when viewed from the adjacent property, contrary to Policy RD1.  She added that the proposal would not be of sufficient design quality due to inappropriate engineering operations, ground remodelling works and associated retaining structures, and would encroach beyond the established building line, contrary to Policy DES1.

            She informed the Committee that, having regard to the development plan, planning history on the site and other material considerations, the proposal was considered unacceptable, and refusal was therefore recommended.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. D. Monaghan, MBA Planning, who attended on behalf of the applicant.

            Mr. Monaghan explained that the application site was zoned for housing development in the draft BMAP, not zoned for open space and did not function as open space.

            He stated that, when the Squire’s View development was approved in 2000, the site and adjoining land were shown on the landscape plan as undeveloped area, with two houses subsequently approved and built on the adjoining land.

            He pointed out that the Planning Service claimed that the application was open space, however, an application to build four houses on the site was made in 2020 and the Planning Service had accepted that the site was not open space.

            He stated that there had previously been complaints that the site attracted antisocial behaviour and to leave it unmanaged and underdeveloped would likely lead to further antisocial issues.

            He referred to design issues and pointed out that the application was for outline planning permission and the drawings which had been submitted with the application were illustrative only and that final drawings would be agreed at the reserved matters state, should permission be granted.

            He stated that the drawings demonstrated how three dwellings could be developed on the site in a manner that was sympathetic to its topography and to the character of the built development in the area.

            He stated that the proposal would not create conflict with an adjoining property, that the site had been surveyed and that proposed dwellings 1 and 2 did not face in the same direction as the proposed replacement dwelling, while dwelling 3 was 40 metres from its rear elevation, which had no habitable room windows facing the site.

            He concluded by stating that the site was not open space and was capable of delivering three high quality new dwellings that would not result in any harm to surrounding properties or the local environment.

            A Member expressed his frustration that the application site was referred to as open space and it was locally known as waste ground and historically and that it was understood that houses were to be built on the site.  He stated that the application would solve antisocial behaviour issues associated with the site.  He added that the proposed retaining wall would retain the character of the area.

            The Principal Planning Officer explained that the site was previously and currently zoned for housing and a housing development had been approved.  She stated that the site did meet the requirement of being existing open space and, in its current form, the application was not considered acceptable.

            The Chairperson enquired as to whether surveys had been undertaken in relation to subsidence at the application site. In response the Planning Manager stated that it would be an engineering issue for the developer to solve but could potentially become a planning issue and explained that the issue could be dealt with though a condition.

Proposal

            Moved by Alderman McCullough,

            Seconded by Councillor Carson,

                   “That the Committee grants planning permission, subject to conditions and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with the concerns about subsidence insofar as they may be relevant and any other issues that might arise, provided that they are not substantive.”

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