Agenda item

            Following a suggestion by the Planning Manager, the Committee agreed that it did not require a summary of the application, having undertaken a detailed presentation at the Pre-Determination Hearing prior to commencement of the meeting.

            The Planning Manager stated that it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Chairperson offered those speakers who had attended the Pre-Determination Hearing, as part of a deputation, an opportunity to add to those representations previously made.

            Ms. F. McGrath, Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), speaking as an objecting statutory consultant, stated that NIHE support for other mono-tenure housing schemes had been because of ongoing work with the housing associations on those schemes for many years prior to the adoption of the Local Development Plan, however, going forward, any schemes of a similar scale, the NIHE would be of the view that it would need to be a mixed tenure scheme.

            Mr. T. Stokes, TSA Planning, speaking as an agent acting on behalf of the applicant, stated that he was content with the information provided and was happy to answer any questions from Members of the Committee.

            In response to a question from a Member regarding the possibility of the applicant amending the application to a mixed tenure scheme, following the advice of NIHE, he stated that the application before Committee was for a scheme that would provide 100% social housing which had been assessed by planning officers on that basis.

            Mr. P. McDonald, Donegall Pass Community Forum, speaking on behalf of objecting local residents, stated that south Belfast had the highest percentage of rental accommodation in Northern Ireland, inclusive of private rentals and social housing, and the need for affordable housing was not being addressed.

            The Planning Manager, in response to a request from a Member, clarified that Policy HOU5 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) stated that there might be issues of concern with regard to mono-tenure schemes which did not generally represent sustainable and balanced communities, and it advised that, with regard to larger schemes of 12 units or more, the Council should have regard to a number of factors when considering whether or not a mono-tenure was appropriate.  He added that the SPG did not state that larger schemes could not be mono-tenure and would be assessed on a case by case basis.

Proposal 1

            Moved by Councillor Magee,

            Seconded by Councillor McCann,

      “That the Committee approves the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement to require all 104 apartments to be delivered as social housing and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement, and to deal with any other issues that might arise, provided that they are not substantive.”

            On a vote, nine Members voted for the proposal and ten against and it was declared lost.

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that, as the proposal to approve the application had fallen, dissenting Members were required to propose to refuse the application and state the grounds on which the refusal would be based.

Proposal 2

            Moved by Councillor T. Brooks,

            Seconded by Councillor Hanvey,

      “That the Committee refuses to grant planning permission on the basis that the scheme was a mono-tenure scheme consisting of 100% social housing and contrary to the Supplementary Planning Guidance and NIHE advice.”

Amendment

            Moved by Alderman McCullough,

            Seconded by Councillor Doran,

      “That the Committee refuse the application on the basis of a lack of community engagement, insufficient amenity and parking, and due to the size, scale and overshadowing of the proposal.”

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

            The proposal, standing in the name of Councillor T. Brooks was put to the Committee and on a vote, four Members voted for the proposal and fifteen against and it was declared lost.

Proposal 3

            Moved by Councillor McCann,

            Seconded by Councillor Magee,

      “That the Committee approves the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement to require all 104 apartments to be delivered as social housing and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement, and to deal with any other issues that might arise, provided that they are not substantive.”

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