The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

This application was proposing the erection of a 15 storey building to form 107 apartments (Use Class C3) at floors 1 to 15, residential amenity facilities including a roof terrace (level 14), associated ground floor cycle storage (68 spaces), two ground floor commercial units (Use Class E/ Sui Generis (Drinking Establishment), multipurpose events Pavilion (Use Class E/ Sui Generis (Drinking Establishment), associated landscaping to site perimeter and rooftop PV panels.

2 letters of objection had been received.

The Planning Officer stated that there had been one further representation from a Local Ward Councillor, raising concerns about the lack of any affordable housing and lack of preliminary discussions with local members to address this. The Ward Councillor noted that the profit level was 12%, considerably lower than usual, that demonstrated the ability to raise capital at this level.

No objector attended the meeting or addressed the Committee on the application.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions.

A member stated they were in favour of the parks and pavilion and asked when this aspect would be open to non-residents, whether this was tied into a condition. The member noted that the scheme was smaller then previously considered and raised a concern about maintenance fees for residents and asked how this would be managed. In their final comments, the member noted that there was no affordable housing linked to this development and no contribution being offered either and requested information on accessible toilet for those with impaired mobility.

The Planning Officer stated that the accessible public space may need rewording and confirmed that the cost of this space is borne by the developer. The pavilion and ground floor unit would create some funding towards the upkeep of public space and affordable housing had been assessed for viability. The Planning Officer concluded by stating that 12% forward funding represented a low figure.

A member stated that they felt that this was a good application and, with regard to its location, felt that this would not be an area best suited for affordable housing.

Another member stated that the Planning Committee deal with each application on its own merit and welcomed this scheme and the public realm attached to it. The member stated that the public realm area should be cleared at night to protect residents’ amenity and should be child friendly.

The Planning Officer stated that they would look into the concern regarding the space being child friendly.

A member noted the addition of a roof terrace and stated that they can create a nuisance for residents within hearing distance and enquired into whether this terrace would be facing other properties. The member asked if the positioning of roof terraces could be a future consideration and asked what the closing times would be.

The Planning Officer stated that roof terrace concerns could be added to condition 23, relating to the management strategy.

Councillor Flanagan moved the recommendation of Minded to Approve for the application. Councillor Andrews seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee agreed the recommendation of Minded to Approve subject to a legal agreement in respect of reconciliation payment of a financial contribution towards off site affordable housing.