Petrol station extension at 46-50 Gilnahirk Road, Belfast

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a dwelling and extending the petrol station shop, car park and pedestrian and cycle facilities.

“Demolition of existing dwelling (no. Gilnahirk Road) to facilitate proposed extension and alterations to existing petrol filling station including extension of retail floor space, extension and realignment of carpark to provide 9 no. additional car parking spaces and pedestrian access, cycle parking, construction of retaining wall and associated landscaping…”

“This application seeks full permission for the demolition of an existing dwelling (No. Gilnahirk Road) to facilitate proposed extension and alterations to existing petrol filling station including extension of retail floor space, extension and realignment of carpark to provide 9 no. additional car parking spaces and pedestrian access, cycle parking, construction of retaining wall and associated landscaping…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a petrol station, shop and detached dwelling in a mixed residential and commercial area near a listed boundary post.

“The application site is located at Nos. 46 – 50 Gilnahirk Road. The site comprises of an existing petrol filling station with forecourt and parking to the front and detached retail shop to the rear at Nos 46-48 Gilnahirk Road. The site also includes a detached single storey dwelling immediately adjacent to the filling station at No. Gilnahirk Road. There is parking to the northern side of the forecourt and directly along the front of the retail shop.”

“The site lies within a mixed-use area comprising commercial and residential uses. The area is characterised by a mix of semi-detached and detached dwellings mainly and a row of shops and commercial premises immediately adjacent and to the north of Nos 46- 48.”

Officer report

Earlier permission and consultation

An earlier petrol station and shop redevelopment was approved, while voluntary consultation received objections, supporters and other feedback that led to amendments.

“Relevant planning history The most relevant planning history relates to No. 48 and is summarised below. - Y/2006/0132/F – 46 - 48 Gilnahirk Road – Demolition of existing filling station and shop and rebuild to provide new filling station and supermarket/retail outlet – Permission granted 3rd April 2007.”

“The proposal does not fall under the category of Major development, and therefore Pre- Application Community Consultation (PACC) was not a statutory requirement, however a Proposal of Application Notice (LA04/2022/1940/PAN) was submitted to set out the applicant’s proposals for the consultation. A voluntary consultation exercise was carried out and a Pre-Application Community Consultation (PACC) report was submitted with the planning application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Bower and a local resident spoke against the application; representatives for the applicant spoke in support and requested approval.

What members debated

Members questioned traffic, parking and amenity, while officers said the proposal met parking standards and DfI Roads had no concerns.

“A number of Members asked questions with regard to increased traffic and parking and its impact on amenity. [name withheld] 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.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members voted 11 to 8 to refuse the application, citing the loss of a dwelling, residential character and existing residential amenity.

“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.”

Minutes