Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·          Principle of the proposed use;

·          Proposed demolition of dwelling;

·          Design;

·          Impact on amenity;

·          Impact on built heritage;

·          Climate change;

·          Health impacts;

·          Access and transportation;

·          Natural heritage;

·          Environmental protection;

·          Wastewater infrastructure; and

·          Trees and landscaping.

She reported that statutory consultees had raised no objections, that the application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press and that 24 representations and a petition had been received.

            She explained that the main concerns raised were an increase in traffic and deliveries, road safety, noise and light pollution and that a retail impact assessment had not been submitted.

            She stated that the concerns raised had been dealt with in the case officer’s report and that, with regards to the traffic and road safety concerns, DfI Roads had confirmed that it was content with the proposal.

            The Principal Planning Officer stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered to be acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Bower to the meeting who attended in objection the application.

            Councillor Bower stated that she was speaking on behalf of a large number of residents who had contacted her with concerns about the application and felt that it raised a number of material planning concerns.

            She explained that the proposal required the loss of an existing dwelling and whilst demolition itself would not require planning permission, the loss of housing was a material consideration as it was not a derelict or unusable home.

            She stated that there were concerns around residential amenity in that the intensification of commercial activity immediately beside homes would increase vehicle movement, forecourt noise and general activity levels.

            She added that pedestrian safety must be considered given that the area around the application site had no pedestrian crossing and DfI had no plans to install one. 

            She concluded by stating that these were policy relevant concerns that merit significant weight.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. C. Heatley to the meeting, a local resident speaking in objection to the application.

            Ms. Heatley stated that she was speaking on behalf of local residents in the Gilnahirk area who strongly opposed the proposed expansion.  She explained that local residents had lodged numerous objections and a petition that highlighted their areas of concern.

            She stated that she believed that the following areas of concern should be given further consideration:

·            The size of the planned extension;

·            Increased levels of traffic, noise and pollution;

·            The local demand for the supermarket;

·            Installation of five self-service tills would not create additional employment;

·            Light pollution; and

·            Retail expansion into a primarily residential area.

Ms. Heatley asked the Committee to reject the planning application.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. E. Loughry from Inaltus and Mr. J. Maneeley, Clarman Architects, to the meeting, who were attending on behalf of the applicant.

            Mr. Loughry stated that the applicant, Maxol, had undertaken a voluntary pre-application community consultation exercise and, as a result, had made a number of changes to its application before submission, that included provision of hedging and tree planting along the boundary, removal of previously proposed pedestrian access, deli counter, seating areas, provision of dedicated safer pedestrian access routes and provision of a pitched roof to the extension.

            He stated that the proposal was a modest extension to the petrol station and associated shop that would replace the dwelling at 50 Gilnahirk Road.  He explained that the extension would be single story with a pitch roof and similar to the height of the existing dwelling.

            He stated that Maxol had served the local community for many years and was investing £2million into the proposal for the renewal and improvement of retail services and, whilst he was aware of the objections which had been raised, he didn’t think they would support a refusal.  He outlined how the proposal would not affect the privacy of any surrounding homes, would not erode residential character, that light spill would be controlled by condition, that the application satisfied planning policy and was supported by technical reports related to retailing, traffic, noise, drainage, ecology, demolition, climate change and design.

            Mr. Loughrey asked the Committee to approve the application.

            In response to a question from a Member with regard to community consultation, Mr. Loughrey stated that he had undertaken a leaflet drop, advertised in a local newspaper and that representatives from Maxol had attended a consultation event at the Stormont Hotel to address some of the concerns which had been raised by residents.

            A number of Members asked questions with regard to increased traffic and parking and its impact on amenity.  Mr. Loughrey responded by stating that there was no anticipation of the additional staff parking in the area, rather that they would travel to work by foot or public transport and that additional customers would be those from the local area undertaking additional top-up shops.

            A Member asked the Principal Planning Officer how much weight was given to Members who had first-hand experience of the area over parking surveys and stated that it was evident from the recent Committee site visit that there was congestion in the existing traffic network in the area.  The Principal Planning Officer responded by explaining that, when DfI undertake the parking assessments, they look at whether the parking within the site is in line with the parking standards within the proposal and that DfI had stated that the proposal met the standards and had no concerns.

Proposal

Moved by Alderman Lawlor,

Seconded by Alderman Rodgers,

      “That the Committee refuses the application on the grounds that the proposal would result in the loss of an existing dwelling and would not be complimentary to the surrounding residential uses, the loss of character and the impact on existing residential amenity, contrary to Policy HOU3 a.”

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

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