104 social rented homes at 1 Havelock House Havelock Place, Ormeau, Belfast

What was proposed

The application sought 104 social rented homes in two blocks of three to five storeys, with landscaping, amenity space, parking and cycle provision.

“ADDENDUM REPORT 2 Committee Date: Tuesday 11 th November 2025 Application ID: LA04/2024/0626/F Proposal: Erection of 104no. social rented residential units (comprising a mix of General Social Housing and Category 1 over 55's accommodation) across two detached blocks [ranging between 3 and 5 storeys], landscaping, communal and private amenity space, ancillary cycle and car parking provision, and other associated site works…”

“Referral Route: Application for Major development Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and Section 76 planning agreement Applicant Name and Address: Genova North West Limited The Factory 184 Newry Road Banbridge BT32 3NB”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant site fronts Ormeau Road, was formerly occupied by Havelock House, and is surrounded by residential, office, commercial and educational uses.

“The site fronts onto Ormeau Road and is currently a vacant site, measuring approximately 0.73 hectares (1.81 acres). It was previously the site of a 3-storey building known as Havelock House, formerly the home of UTV, which has since been demolished. The southern boundary of the site is bounded by the railway line and is defined by a sloping embankment. The western boundary is defined by a mixture of brick wall and paladin fence.”

“The surrounding area is comprised of a mix of uses including residential, office, commercial and educational. Terraced and semi-detached dwellings are located to the immediate west/northwest of the site on Walnut Street/Vernon Street and Walnut Court. The site is bounded to the north by Coyle’s Place, where the 8-storey residential block (Portland 88) sits, also fronting onto Ormeau Road.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a Section 76 agreement, citing brownfield regeneration, affordable homes, sustainable access, suitable design and no harmful planning impacts.

“It would make very effective use of land, a finite resource within the city centre, whilst the provision of social housing responds to the significant unmet need for social housing in Belfast. The scale, height, massing and design of the building are considered appropriate to the site’s context, and the approach to green travel is acceptable. The proposal would not have a harmful impact in respect of other land-use planning considerations.”

“It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions and a Section 76 Planning Agreement to secure the details noted previously. It is requested that delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions and the Section 76 Planning Agreement, and deal with any other matters that may arise, provided that they are not substantive.”

Officer report

Who spoke

NIHE opposed similar large mono-tenure schemes, the applicant’s agent supported the submitted proposal, and a community representative said affordable housing need was not being addressed.

What members debated

Members discussed whether the application could become mixed tenure and whether policy allowed mono-tenure schemes to be assessed individually rather than prohibited outright.

“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.”

“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.”

Minutes

The votes

The first approval proposal failed by nine votes to ten; a refusal amendment and the initial refusal proposal also failed before a later approval proposal passed 12–7.

“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.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee approved planning permission for all 104 apartments as social housing, subject to conditions and a Section 76 agreement, with delegated authority for final wording.

“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.”

Minutes