Town Planning Committee 13 January 2006
From Nigov
F350
Friday, 13th January, 2006
Contents |
SPECIAL MEETING OF TOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE
Members present: Councillor Patterson (Chairman); and Councillors Lavery, Long, McCarthy, McClenaghan, McKenzie, Moore, O’Neill, Rodway and Smyth.
In attendance:
- Mr. R. Boyd, Members’ Support Officer;
- Mr. B. Flynn, Committee Administrator; and
- Mr. C. McGuigan (Divisional Planning Office).
Apologies
Apologies for inability to attend were reported from Councillors Campbell, Hendron and P. Maskey.
Planning Application
348 Belmont Road
The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 8th December, it had, in order to permit deputations to attend, deferred consideration of an application for the demolition of a house at 348 Belmont Road and the construction of eighteen private apartments. The Principal Planning Officer outlined the major aspects of the application and the objections which had been raised and answered a number of questions in relation thereto.
It was reported that Messrs. De Freitas and Davis, together with the Reverend Savage, representing the objectors to the application, were in attendance and they were admitted to the meeting and welcomed by the Chairman (Councillor Patterson).
The Reverend Savage indicated that the principal objections to the proposal were that:
- the proposed development would change substantially the character and amenity of the vicinity;
- the proposed development would be inappropriate as it would represent an overdevelopment of the site; and
- the development would be inappropriate in its form, scale, design and mass.
Mr. Davis, the occupant of 362 Belmont Road, which was adjacent to 348, outlined his concerns in the matter. He pointed out that a new access road would be required for the development which would have an adverse impact on the resident of 2 Knockdarragh Park, in that it would result in a loss of privacy and would pose severe traffic difficulties due to the proposed construction of an access road. In addition, he indicated that there would be a significant degree of overlooking to his property by the development.
Dr. De Freitas reiterated a number of points which had been made by the other members of the deputation. He outlined his concerns in respect of overlooking, issues of noise, waste disposal and the fact that this development would be setting an unacceptable precedent within the area.
In conclusion, the members of the deputation indicated that they wished the developers to consider compromising the extent of the development by reducing by 50% the number of apartments which were to be built with a proportionate reduction in the height of the buildings.
The members of the deputation answered several questions which were put to them by the Members in respect of the impact to the area of this development. They thanked the Committee for receiving them and retired from the meeting.
Mr. K. Brown, representing McVeigh Architectural Partnership, who was in attendance on behalf of the applicant, was admitted to the meeting and welcomed by the Chairman (Councillor Patterson)
The objections which had been raised to the application were outlined to him. He tabled for the Committee’s information a detailed document which addressed each of the concerns raised by the objectors.
He pointed out that the Roads Service had offered no objection to the proposal in relation to traffic impact. He explained that the ridge heights of the proposed buildings were consistent with the height and neighbouring properties and that the design of the proposed buildings had addressed completely the issue of any potential loss of privacy of neighbouring dwellings. Mr. Brown then answered several questions which were put to him by the Members and he then retired from the meeting.
After discussion, it was
Moved by Councillor Long, Seconded by Councillor Rodway,
That the Committee agrees to reject the opinion of the Divisional Planning Manager to approve the application for the proposed demolition of a house at 348 Belmont Road and construction of eighteen private apartments on the grounds that:
(i) the development would be out of character with the local area due to its density and scale;
(ii) the development would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties, specifically through an increase in traffic which would result in noise nuisance and pollution; and
(iii) the development would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties due to loss of privacy.
On a vote by a show of hands four Members voted for the proposal and four against. The Chairman (Councillor Patterson) exercised her second and casting vote in favour of the proposal and, accordingly, it was declared carried.
(As the decision was not unanimous it was subject to ratification by the Council.)
31 Strathearn Park
The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 8th December, it had, in order to allow deputations to attend, deferred consideration of an application for a first floor extension over a garage with links into a dwelling at 31 Strathearn Park. The Principal Planning Officer outlined the major aspects of the applications and the objections which had been raised in relation thereto.
It was reported that Mr. and Mrs. Clinging, the objectors to the development, and whose house was adjacent to the site, were in attendance and they were admitted to the meeting and welcomed by the Chairman (Councillor Patterson).
Mrs. Clinging outlined the history of the planning application and the objections which had been raised to it. She indicated that the development would, in her view, result in a loss of amenity to the neighbouring property due to the scale and detrimental visual impact of the proposed development.
Mr. and Mrs. Clinging thanked the Committee for receiving them and they then retired from the meeting.
It was reported that Mr. R. and Mrs. J. Gaston, the applicants, were in attendance and they were welcomed to the meeting by the Chairman (Councillor Patterson).
Mr. Gaston provided the Committee with an outline of the issues related to the development and answered a number of questions which were put to him by the Members. He explained that originally the application had been recommended for approval by the Planning Service and, subsequently, the proposal had been amended to take account of minor changes to the development. Mr. and Mrs. Gaston then retired from the meeting.
After discussion, the Committee agreed to accept the Divisional Planning Manager’s opinion to approve the application for a first floor extension over a garage at 31 Strathearn Park.
Chairman
