Agenda item

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application and explained that the application had been approved by the Committee at its meeting in August, 2025 and that, subsequently, six late objections had been received which raised the following issues:

·        Road safety;

·        Conflict with existing right of way;

·        Parking;

·        Access;

·        Contaminated land; and

·        Community consultation.

            She reported that four late letters of support had been submitted and that correspondence had been received from Carson McDowell Solicitors on behalf of Agnew’s Trade Centre which clarified that the previous objection, referred to in the case officer report, should have referenced the northwestern corner of the site rather than the northeastern corner and the agent had subsequently submitted a rebuttal of the aforementioned objection and a revised ground floor plan which removed the superseded site layout from the drawing.

            She explained the key points raised in objection and stated that officers were content that the objections had been addressed, she added that neither DfI Roads nor Environmental Health had offered any objection to the application.

            She stated that, having regard to the Local Development Plan and all material considerations, it was recommended that the application be approved.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. J. Mawhinney, MBA Planning, on behalf of Issac Agnew Ltd., to the meeting.

            In objection to the application, Ms. Mawhinney outlined the following key facts with regard to issues of parking and incompatibility of uses:

·          The extent of Agnew’s right of way had not been detailed within the report and that it had an unfettered right to pass through without restriction;

·          That it was incorrect that Agnew’s was restricted in its access arrangements through its planning permission;

·          The vehicle tracking analysis was incorrect and should have evidenced that there was a pinch point on the northwestern corner;

·          The case officer report incorrectly asserted that there was no evidence that the proximity of the proposed leisure facility and HGV movements would increase the likelihood of vehicular-pedestrian conflict; and

·          There was no objective evidence to support the assertion that the shortfall of 40no. spaces could be met by on-street parking.

            In conclusion, she stated that Agnew’s had clearly demonstrated the conflict between its permitted operation and the proposed development, that harm was not mitigated by the proposed site layout or conditions sought to be imposed, and that right of way restrictions could not simply be disregarded.  She asked the Committee to refuse the application.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. L. McCausland, Agent, Mr. C. O’Hara, Tetratech Roads Consultant, and Mr. I. McNeill, Architect, to the meeting on behalf of the applicant.

            Ms. McCausland stated that the proposal had been unanimously approved by the Committee at its meeting in August, 2025 and that, since then, objections had been received from one objector, Issac Agnew Ltd. which was located to the rear of the application site.  She added that support for the proposal had been received from Blackstaff Residents’ Association and members of the public from the local community.

            She stated that, in response to the objections, the application had been amended, that a re-consultation had been carried out and highlighted that the application before the Committee had been recommended for approval with no objection from any statutory consultees.

            She explained that Agnew’s current site layout had not been built in accordance with or was operations as approved site layout from its own planning permission which would create potential conflict with existing and proposed land uses.

            She stated that the objection in relation to right of way was a civil matter and not a planning matter.  She added that objections related to parking layout had been considered by planning offers and that the applicant had removed all spaces along the eastern boundary to facilitate Agnew’s operations with its own planning permission.

            She informed the Committee that the revised ground floor plan demonstrated that the proposal did not seek to introduce any obstruction or impinge upon the right of way and demonstrated that Agnew’s existing transporter movements would not be impacted upon by the proposal.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with any other issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.