Agenda and minutes

No apologies for inability to attend were reported.

            The minutes of the Pre Determination Hearing of 23rd February and the Committee meeting of 16th March were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 1st April, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor O’Hara also declared an interest in Item 6a – LA04/2019/1540/F - the CAD plant at Dargan Road, in that he was on the Board of Belfast Harbour Commissioners as a political appointment and that it had objected to the application. He advised that, as it was a Council appointment and as he did not have a pecuniary interest, he could fully participate in the discussion on the item.

            Councillor Hussey declared an interest in Item 6e, namely LA04/2021/0024/F -Retrospective single storey extension to the front of existing single storey garage at 10 Broomhill Park, in that he had taken part in enforcement action.  He advised the Committee that he wished to reserve the right to speak in objection to the application, but would not take part in the discussion or the vote.

The Committee noted that site visits had been undertaken, on 8th April, to the following applications:

·        LA04/2020/2200/F - Demolition of Nos. 27 to 37 Linenhall Street and Nos. 8-10 Clarence Street and erection of seven storey office building 8-10 Clarence Street, 27-37 Linenhall Street and existing car park at the corner of Linenhall Street and Clarence Street; and

·        LA04/2020/0857/F - Demolition of existing hostel building and redevelopment to provide four-storey building comprising 15 No. residential units, office space and ancillary development at Ormeau Centre, 5-11 Verner Street.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence in respect of a number of planning appeals which had been submitted to the Planning Appeals Commission, together with the outcomes of a range of hearings which had been considered by the Commission.

            The Committee noted a list of decisions which had been taken under the delegated authority of the Director of Planning and Building Control, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 9th March and 9th April.

            The Committee noted that the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) proposed to abandon the following areas under Article 68 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993:

·        55.2 square metres of land at Areema Drive, Dunmurry;

·        marked lands at 197-201 Crumlin Road;

·        85 square metres of landat Seymour Lane; and

·        a section of footpath at 29 University Road.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0        Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1                 Correspondence has been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED) of the Department for Communities (DFC), notifying the Council that 9 no. historic street signs within the Belfast Council area have been formally listed under section 80 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       Committee is requested to:

·        Note the correspondence (available on mod.gov) notifying the Council of the listing of the 9 no. street signs.

3.0       Main report

3.1       Members will recall that a Notice of Motion (NOM) was considered at the Planning Committee meeting of 18 August 2020 in respect of the restoration and listing of 12 no. historic street signs within the city. 

3.2       The Council then contacted HED to begin a formal process regarding their potential for listing. Members will recall that the council was then consulted by HED, under an Advance Notice of Listing (ANL) which was brought before the planning committee on 19th January 2021.  Members endorsed the proposed listings with no further comments at that time.

3.3       The information in Appendix 1 (available on mod.gov) provides full details of the signs which have now been listed. Members may wish to note that of the 12 no. signs included in the NOM, a total of 8 no. have now been formally listed by HED.  1 no. additional sign has also been listed, which was not included in the initial NOM.

3.4       The notification from HED confirms that the following street signs have now been listed:

·        Beersbridge Road and Upper Newtownards Road, Belfast (back edge of footpath)

·        Belmont Church Road and Sydenham Avenue, Belfast (back edge of footpath)

·        Carolhill Gardens and Holywood Road (back edge of footpath)

·        Cherryvalley Park and Kensington Road, Belfast (back edge of footpath / garden)

·        Clonlee Drive and Upper Newtownards Road, Belfast (garden)

·        Eastleigh Drive and Kincora Avenue, Belfast (garden)

·        Kensington Road and Knock Road (back edge of footpath / garden)

·        Knockland Park and Barnett’s Road, Belfast (relocated to back edge of footpath)

·        Summerhill Parade and Barnett’s Road, Belfast (back edge of footpath / garden)

3.5       The information in Appendix 2 (available on mod.gov) sets out:

·        which street signs were specifically raised through the NOM;

·        which street signs were subsequently reviewed through the ANL; and

·        which street signs have now been formally listed.

3.6       Clarification has been sought from HED whether they intend to pursue with a review/survey of the remaining 4 no. signs from the initial NOM, and a timescale for such, in addition to their intentions regarding the future review/survey of historic signs both within Belfast and other council areas.  Members will informed of any response.

            Financial & Resource Implications 

            None.

            Equality or Good Relations Implications

            None.”

            The Committee noted the contents of the report.

            The Planning Manager presented the details of the application to the Committee. He reminded the Members that ithad been due to be considered by the Committee on 18th August 2020, but that it had been deferred due to correspondence received from a legal representative, representing Giant’s Park Belfast Limited (GPBL).  The Committee was reminded that GPBL was seeking to bring forward a mixed-use, leisure-led proposal on the adjacent land to the north and west. In responding to the objection, the applicant had produced a second addendum to theEnvironmental Statement, which had been duly submitted and consulted on.

            The Planning Manager explained that the Committee had undertaken a site visit in respect of the application in September 2020 and, at its meeting on 19th January, 2021, it had agreed to defer the application for further information on the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), which had been carried out by Shared Environmental Services (SES).  The Committee had also agreed to hold a non-mandatory Pre Determination Hearing which had taken place on 23rd February, 2021.

            The Members were advised that a range of issues had been discussed at the Pre Determination Hearing, including:

·        the scope of the adopted Masterplan for the wider lands and potential deviation from it;

·        the need for the proposed CAD facility in real terms as well as policy context;

·        the status of current waste contacts and long-term viability of the proposal.

·        where the waste would be coming from and issues around transport sustainability;

·        where the by-product waste would be taken;

·        the scope of the Transport Assessment;

·        traffic management;

·        whether account had been taken of the economic impact of the proposal on the GPBL proposals and the adjacent Film Studios;

·        noise impacts on the Film Studios;

·        the impact of the proposal on air quality including nitrogen and ammonia levels;

·        details of the Habitats Regulations Assessment which had been carried out by SES;

·        whether the proposal was of regional significance; and

·        foul drainage.

            Following the PDH, the applicant had provided further information and clarification in relation to a number of the substantive points which had been raised at the Hearing. The Committee was advised that the information had been shared with objectors and was available for viewing on the Planning Portal.  The correspondence contained information relating to the source of household waste, the processing of the landfill by-product, the need for the facility, emerging and future waste policy and how the proposal would contribute to realising future waste policy targets, current land-fill of household waste in NI and the extent to which it could be diverted to the application site, the length of waste contracts in the Belfast City Council area, transport sustainability, clarification around the source of the meteorological data for air quality, foul drainage and sanitation and the amount of renewable energy which would be generated through the facility.

            In response to the further information from the applicant, the Committee was advised that a further objection had been received from GPBL  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

            The Principal Planning officer outlined the key aspects of the application for full planning permission to reconstruct a fire damaged petrol station and associated shop.  She advised the Committee that it had been due to consider the application on 19th January, 2021, but that an objection had been received at a late stage and the application was subsequently removed from the agenda to allow time for further consideration.  Since January, she explained that the description of the proposal had been altered and the revised description had been advertised in the local press and neighbour notified.

            The Committee was advised that the site was located within the development limits as designated in the Belfast Urban Area Plan and draft BMAP. The application had been assessed against relevant planning policy, dBMAP, SPPS and PPS3.

            The Committee was advised that two further objections had been received from the nearby Beckett’s Bar.  The objector raised anomalies with the floor space figures presented by the agent, and stated that additional retail floor space would be created and therefore parking provision should be increased.  Further consideration of the floorspace figures revealed that the plans were accurate. However, figures relating to uses at question 24 of the P1 application form were incorrect.  There was a total increase in floor space of 108sqm at the proposed petrol filling station shop, 88sqm of which was retail use. There was no change in the footprint of either the chip shop or nail bar to the front of the site.  The updated floor-space figures were published to the planning portal on 3rd February. 

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late Items pack.  An email had been received from an objector, Carlin Planning, raising issues which had previously been raised, including a shortfall in parking spaces and concerns regarding road safety. The Case officer’s response to the comments were provided to the Committee, including that DFI Roads had been consulted on the late objection and that their position remained unchanged.  The Members were also advised that adjacent local businesses had been considered, that the site was well served by public transport and there had been no significant issues with parking or road safety at the site prior to the fire.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. R. McCausland BL to the meeting.  He was speaking on behalf of an objector, Fernmount Trading (NI) Ltd & Sharp (NI) Limited.  He advised the Committee that:

·        His client was concerned about the intensification of the site as the current parking provision at the site was inadequate and that his client’s car parking facilities were used as an overspill;

·        the application was contrary to Policy AMP7 of PPS3, which stated that development proposals were required to provide adequate provision for car parking and appropriate servicing arrangements;

·        that none of the circumstances applied in terms of  Policy AMP7 of PPS3, which would allow a reduced level of car parking provision;

·        DFI Roads’ position had changed over time and, in September 2020, it had considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9b

            (Councillor Hanvey did not participate in the vote on this item as he had not been present for the duration of the officer’s presentation when it had been presented previously, on 19th January, 2021.)

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application, which had previously been presented at the meeting on 19th January.

            She explained that the item had been deferred for a second time at that meeting, on the basis that Members had requested legal advice in relation to the planning position of the site in respect of its current status, regarding the demolition of the previous dwelling on site and whether that constituted willful abandonment, a nil use or neither.

            The Principal Planning officer outlined that the Case officer remained of the view that the demolition of the original dwelling had resulted in a nil use of the land, when considered in light of previous relevant case law.  She explained that DCS No 400-002-136 considered the lawful use of a site following demolition.  In that case, the inspector had declined to confirm that the construction of three replacement dwellings in Leicestershire would be lawful following demolition of the original dwellings and that it created a nil use on the site. The case was clear that demolition had resulted in nil use.

            The Committee was advised that it was confirmed that the previous dwelling was demolished in 2013.

            The agent had stated that the established residential use for the previous 115 years had not been taken into account. The Principal Planning officer advised that it remained that no planning permission had been granted on the site for the replacement of the dwelling and the length of time the previous dwelling stood was not a relevant factor.  Once the previous dwelling was demolished the site contained a nil use.

            The agent made reference to case law, in regards to establishing whether an existing use had been abandoned in circumstances where the residential building was still on the land, in various states of dilapidation, or where the use of the land for certain commercial uses had discontinued for a number of years.  The Principal Planning officer explained that none of the cases addressed the lawful use of a residential site following the demolition of the dwelling. The case of Iddenden and Others V. Secretary of State for the Environment and Another [1972] 1 WLR 1433 did, however, deal with circumstances such as these, i.e., where there had been demolition of the residence, albeit it was in the context of enforcement. In that case, the Court were of the view that the established use was lost once the demolition had occurred.

            She outlined that the Planning Service was unaware of any PAC decisions in respect of the issue and the applicant’s agent had not provided any. Officers were however aware that the approach had been used by some English planning appeal decisions.  She added that officers remained of the view that the application site currently had a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9c

            Moved by Councillor Garrett,

            Seconded by Councillor Collins and

      Resolved - That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to allow the ongoing engagement to continue between the developer and local residents.

            The Committee noted, as the application had not been presented, that all Members’ present at the next meeting, would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            Moved by Councillor Hussey,

            Seconded by Councillor McCullough and

      Resolved - That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to allow the developer to submit further information in respect of viability and improvements to public realm.

            The Committee noted, as the application had not been presented, that all Members’ present at the next meeting, would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            (The Chairperson, Councillor Hussey, having declared an interest in this item, did not participate in the vote on the item and indicated that he would leave the meeting after he had spoken on it.)

(Councillor McKeown in the Chair)

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the details of the retrospective application for an extension to the front of an existing single storey garage.

            She explained that the key issues which had been considered by officers included:

·        scale, massing and design

·        impact on the surrounding character

·        impact on the Malone Conservation Area; and

·        impact on amenity.

            She drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items pack and clarified that no petition had been received, but that five objections had been received.  The objections raised issues including inaccuracies in PHD form, that it was contrary to policy and legislation, the retrospective nature of the application and issues surrounding the building lines. She advised the Members that the issues raised in the objections had been considered in the Case officer’s report.

            She advised the Members that, on balance, having taken into account the relevant planning policy legislation, representations received and other material considerations, it was considered that the proposal would integrate well with the existing dwelling and would not detract or harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy EXT1 of PPS7 (Addendum): Residential Extensions and Alterations, PPS6 and the SPPS.  It was considered that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Malone Conservation Area and was in line with ‘A Design Guide for the Malone Conservation Area’. 

            The Committee was advised that the Council’s Conservation and Heritage Team had been consulted and had offered no objection to the proposal

            In response to a Member’s question regarding a previous application for the house, which had been rejected, the Principal Planning officer drew the Committee’s attention to the site history.  She advised the Members that the previous application had been for a much larger extension to the first floor of the property.  She emphasised to the Members that a property being within a Conservation Area did not mean that works could not take place, but rather that they had to be sensitive to the surrounding area.  She explained that the application was for a 1.8 metre extension to the garage and that it would not impact on the wider Conservation Area.

            The Chairperson invited Councillor Hussey to address the Committee.

            Councillor Hussey advised the Committee that he felt that the application should be refused on the basis that:

·        a larger scale application had previously been submitted by the applicant, including an extension to the garage and the first floor, which had been refused by the Committee and that decision had been upheld by the PAC;

·        the applicant had started the construction of the garage extension and had then been contacted by Planning enforcement in respect of the unauthorised works;

·        it should be noted that the applicant had then quickly finished the garage extension before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9f

            The Principal Planning officer outlined the details of the application.

            The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee that the applicant was seeking to vary Condition 3, which required details of materials to be submitted and approved prior to ‘commencement’ of development to agreement prior to ‘occupation’ and to enable a change to the proposed materials.

            The Committee was advised that no representations had been received regarding the proposal.  The Principal Planning officer explained that, having taken account of the planning history on the site, the proposed changes were considered compliant with the development plan and other relevant policies.

            He outlined that HED had been consulted and was satisfied that the proposed finishes were acceptable in the context of the listed Ewart building. 

            He drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items pack, where a formal response had been received from the Urban Design Officer.  He explained that it confirmed the position set out in the Case officer’s report, whereby the Urban Design Officer had no objections to the proposed change in materials, subject to the submission of annotated elevations clearly highlighting those sections of the building where the change of materials was proposed and CGI views showing the approved materials to enable comparison with the proposed materials.  The late items report also confirmed receipt of the annotated plans and CGIs. He added that the Conservation officer had also advised that he was content and had no objection.

            A number of Members stated that the application to vary the condition was frustrating, given that the construction had almost been completed and that the original condition had not been adhered to.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the Section 76 Agreement and the conditions.

            The Members were provided with the details of the application, which was partly funded by the Council.

            It sought full planning permission for a change of use and refurbishment of the ground floor and part of the first floor of a building in the Conway Mill Complex to a provide a new training gym with elevation changes.

            The key issues which had been considered during the assessment included the principle of development and the acceptability of the proposed use, impact on a listed building, road issues, impact on the surrounding character, contamination and noise.

            The Committee was advised that it was considered that the proposed change of use and alterations would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would not impact on surrounding neighbouring properties.

            No objections had been received and consultees had offered no objection to the proposal.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of those conditions.

            The Committee was advised of the key aspects of the application which sought full planning permission for a change of use from a retail furniture showroom to a fitness/exercise training centre.  The Members were advised that the Council had an estate in the land.

            The Members were advised that the main issues which had been considered in the assessment of the application were the principle of development, impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on amenity, access and parking and road safety.  The proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the BUAP, Draft BMAP, PPS3 and the SPPS.

            The application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press and no letters of representation had been received.

            Environmental Health had been consulted and was content with the proposal, subject to an informative being attached to the decision regarding the transmission of potential noise.

            DfI Roads had also been consulted and had offered no objection, subject to a condition being attached relating to the provision for cycle parking.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

            The Committee was provided with the details of a Belfast City Council application.  The Members noted that temporary planning permission was sought for a change of use of public road for a pedestrianised public space.

            The Members noted that the proposed change of use would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed temporary use of the site for entertainment and food and drink consumption would add variety to an area that was dominated by the same use type.

            The Committee was advised that no objections had been received.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

            Moved by Councillor Collins,

            Seconded by Councillor Maskey and

      Resolved - That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application as Members had not been able to access all of the relevant documents through the Planning Portal.

            The Committee noted, as the application had not been presented, that all Members’ present at the next meeting, would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.