Agenda and minutes

            An apology for inability to attend was reported on behalf of Councillor Groogan.

            Councillor Whyte (Chairperson) declared an interest in relation to item 3a, LA04/2020/1959/F - Section 2 Forthmeadow Community Greenway, in that, he had previously engaged with objectors to the application.  He also declared an interest in relation to item 3e, LA04/2021/1672/O - Gasworks Northern Fringe site, in that, he had worked with Radius Housing.  He left the meeting for the duration of the items.

            Councillor Maskey declared an interest in relation to item 3a, LA04/2020/1959/F - Section 2 Forthmeadow Community Greenway, in that he was employed by Intercomm.  He left the meeting for the duration of the item.

            The Committee noted that the following item had been withdrawn from the agenda by officers:

·    Proposed Abandonment

            The following item was withdrawn by the applicant:

·        LA04/2021/1231/O - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 36. apartments in 2 blocks at 385 Holywood Road

(The Chairperson, and Deputy Chairperson, Councillor Maskey, having declared an interest in the item, left the meeting while the item was under consideration.)

(Councillor Hanvey in the Chair.)

            The Planning Manager explained that the application had been before the Committee in September 2021, where it had agreed to grant permission with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions. 

            He pointed out that the decision had been subject to Judicial Review, and that the Council had conceded on the single point of its application of the BUAP 2001, and that, the decision had been quashed, therefore, the application had been returned to the Committee for consideration.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, which outlined correspondence that had been received in relation to the application, including appendices from Take Back the City Coalition and a link to the most up to date statistics on homelessness in the city from Participation and the Practice of Right (PPR).  The Planning Manager set out the contents of the late items report and he referred the Committee to a summary of correspondence which had been received, which included an open letter to Members, a solicitors speaking statement which had been prepared on behalf of objectors to the application, a copy of a quashing order, a letter from Take Back the City to key stakeholders, correspondence from Invest NI, press cuttings and a hyperlink to a SUSTRANS web page regarding the Forth Meadow Community Greenway. He outlined the concerns which had been raised in the late items and provided the Committee with the Council officers’ response to those issues. In particular, he pointed out that the substantive policy issues raised were addressed in the new report and he informed the Committee that, the issues which had been raised about a specific individual, were not material planning considerations and had been forwarded to the relevant Council department to consider and respond in due course. He added that, objectors had sufficient time to consider the Committee report.

            The Planning Manager made reference to paragraph 4.17 of the SPPS and addressed the concerns around prematurity of the LDP process.  He advised that the Committee must consider the application which was before it, and that any subsequent application which may seek to deliver alternatives envisaged by the objectors would be carefully considered, having regard to relevant planning policy and all other material considerations.

            The Planning Manager outlined the application which sought full planning permission for parkland, which included foot and cycle pathways, lighting columns, new entrances and street furniture.  He added that, the proposal formed Section 2 of the wider Forthmeadow Community Greenway, a 12km route that provided connectivity through the west and north of the city.

            He outlined the physical constraints of the project, stating that it had been apparent from the Members’ site visit and photographs, that a large part of the site was physically constrained as there was a steep ravine from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

(Councillor Whyte, Chairperson, resumed the Chair)

            The Planning Manager reported that the application had previously been considered by the Committee in August, 2021 and January, 2022 and that a site visit had taken place in September 2021.  He pointed out that 272 objections had been received and that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and reminded the Committee that, it had deferred the application at its meeting in January, 2022 in order that officers would investigate the possibility of attaching a condition or planning agreement to the application to ensure a right of access through the site for use by the general public.

            He referred the Committee to the Late Items Report, that provided clarity as to the location of existing live applications in the vicinity of the application site and reported that a late representation had been received which had expressed concern about the proposed Section 76 Agreement, in that access should also be for wheelchair users and prams, that permitted closures would be too broad and that the path could be closed for long periods, and outlined concerns with regard to a lack of alternative routes, the makeup of the management company and the frequency of meetings with residents.

            He provided the Committee with an overview of the site through a series of maps which outlined the position of the site, the development limit and access points, and elevation drawings of the proposed dwellings.  He explained that the proposed pathway was two metres wide and would be finished in resin-bound rubber mulch leading to the Lagan Valley Regional Park.

            The Planning Manager referred the Committee to the draft terms of the Section 76 planning agreement and outlined the main obligations.  He reported that, officers were recommending that the application should be approved, subject to a Section 76 planning agreement, on the basis that the principle of the development had been established through the existing extant permissions and that it was generally respectful to the surrounding context and character of the immediate locality.  He added that, following consultation with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, it was considered that, the application complied with the policy tests of PPS 2, subject to conditions, which mitigated potential ecological impacts. 

            He concluded by stating that, it was considered that, the proposed development complied with planning policy in relation to residential amenity, amenity space, protection of open space, flooding, drainage, infrastructure, landscaping and archaeological heritage.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. W. Orbinson QC, on behalf of the Applicant, to the meeting.  Mr. Orbinson reported that the Applicant had engaged constructively with the Council’s officers on the drafting of a Section 76 Agreement and was pleased that it had been recommended for approval by the Committee.

            The Divisional Solicitor reported that, permitted closures in order to assert rights of proprietorship would only be permitted for up to 72 hours, unless there had been previous consent of the Council.

            Councillor McAteer was in attendance at the Committee and the Chair invited her to comment on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

            Moved by Councillor Spratt;

            Seconded by Councillor Whyte and

            Resolved – That the Members of the Committee agree defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken in order to allow the Members to acquaint themselves with the location and the proposals at first hand.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application site and outlined the proposal to change the use of the units from an indoor trampoline park to a retail supermarket and that the proposal for retail use related to a premises located within a retail shopping centre, designated as a district centre in Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) and complied with the Development Plan and accorded with the retail policies in Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS). 

            He reported that the local development plan team had been consulted with and had no objections, subject to planning conditions and that officers were satisfied that the proposal would not prejudice protected centres.

            He explained that there were minimal elevational changes, in keeping with the use and character of the shopping centre.  He reported that Environmental Health had no objections in relation to noise or disturbance but had requested an air quality screening assessment and that additional information had been submitted by the applicant which sought to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in detrimental air quality impact, relating to traffic impact and would be assessed and verified as part of an assessment in consultation with Environmental Health.

            He added that, DfI Roads and NI Water did not submit any objections to the application and that officers recommended that the Committee approved the application subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. P. Stinson, Director, Turley, to the meeting, and asked if he could clarify whether the retail unit would increase the traffic volumes in the area, as it was in an air quality management area.  Mr. Stinson stated that the current level of parking at the existing centre had not been fully utilised, evidenced by surveys that had been undertaken on two survey dates which had taken place in January and that the proposal would not increase the traffic above the current capacity of the car park.

            The Committee approved the application and granted delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and resolve any outstanding matters with regard to air quality.

(The Chairperson, having declared an interest in the item, left the meeting while

the item was under consideration.)

(Deputy Chairperson, Councillor Maskey in the Chair.)

            The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the site location, that included a layout of the proposed development and elevation images, in order to convey the residential context and indicative public realm of the application.

            He presented a 3D context of the Gasworks Masterplan which illustrated how the overall site would look like post-development.  He stated that there was a balance to the proposed development and that, any loss of industrial land would be outweighed by wider community benefits on a generous level of business, commercial and community uses which would provide a sustainable job creation package for a site largely vacant of any recent industrial or employment uses, as it had been vacant for some time. 

            He informed the Members that, officers had recommended that the Committee would approve the application, subject to conditions and developer contributions having been sought through a legal agreement between the Council, as the landowner, and the developer or developers, when the site was leased or disposed of. 

            The Senior Planning Officer pointed out to the Committee that there were 268 third party representations received that were in support of the social housing and mixed-use elements of the proposal, and that, some had raised concerns regarding the delivery and operation of some of the elements of the proposals.  He outlined the reasons for recommending approval of the application, which included:

·      A mixed-use scheme that provided high quality city centre social housing alongside appropriate city centre uses;

·      Creation of vibrant, city centre space;

·      Regeneration;

·      Enhancement of the existing civic spaces and creation of strong mixed-use frontages; and

·      Provision of connections between commercial, business, offices uses and existing and proposed residential areas.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. A. Bullock, AECOM, Ms. D. Quinn, Radius Housing, Mr. A. Crozier, TODD Architects and Mr. F. Hargey, Market Development Association, to the meeting.

            Mr. Hargey stated that the sites which were under consideration were among the first developed for housing in the South Inner City and that the development was the culmination of two decades of campaigning by Market residents, having collected petitions, lobbied political representatives, participated in the consultation process and, when necessary, protested to secure the homes.

            He pointed out that, the community had over 110 homeless families on the waiting list annually, and that, the 94 new homes would have a considerable impact.  He referred to the links between homelessness, poor mental health and poor educational attainment and that, the development would contribute to the reduction of wider social deprivations within the community.

            He reported that the elements of the masterplan which designated adjoining lands for community infrastructure, social economy and cooperative development had been welcomed by the local residents and stated that successful communities were built on more than houses, and that those spaces would help overcome the structural deficiencies of the Market community’s redevelopment in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4e

(Councillor Whyte, Chairperson, resumed the Chair.)

            The Senior Planning Officer explained to the Committee that the application was for the re-cladding of the exterior of the building, creation of a new access point to the upper floors and central core on Castle Arcade, demolition of bridge link over Castle Arcade and the erection of a new oversail section at the junction of Castle Lane and Castle Arcade.  She added that the application included a partial change of use of the upper floors from storage and back of house facilities to a mixed-use of Assembly and Leisure, a sui-generis multifaceted leisure use combined with the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises and the reconfiguration of existing ground floor storage, associated public realm improvements and ancillary development.

            She provided the Committee with an overview of the site location, with images of the exterior of the existing premises on Castle Lane and Cornmarket and the proposed demolition.  She added that the existing building was considered to be of no historic or architectural value and the proposed demolition was considered acceptable and compliant with policy.

            She provided the Committee with images of the proposed layout of the site and proposed elevations and views.  She explained that the Conservation Officer had expressed views that the proposal would be harmful to the conservation area through a contrast of materials and would undermine the dominance of the listed heritage asset of the Masonic Hall, however the Historic Environment Division (HED) had considered the proposed use of the cladding was appropriate as it complemented other buildings in the immediate area.

            She outlined proposed public realm improvements and concluded by stating that the proposal had been recommended for approval by officers for the undernoted reasons:

·      The proposal complied with the Development Plan and relevant Planning Policy;

·      Significant benefits included physical and economic regeneration, the re-use of a vacant building, environmental improvements, improved connectivity in the city centre; and

·      Enhancement of the conservation area;

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Worthington, Pragma Planning, to the meeting who stated that, the main area of interest in the application centred around the design and that the design had ensured high quality of design that was appropriate for the setting and added that the Applicant was content with the proposed planning conditions.

            The Committee agreed to approve applications LA04/2022/0535/F and LA04/2022/0468/DCA and granted delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions.

            At the request of the Chairperson, it was:

            Resolved – That the Members of the Committee agree defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken in order to allow the Members to acquaint themselves with the location and the proposals at first hand.

The Planning Manager reported that officers had been engaging with NI Water over the previous months to resolve several objections which had been submitted against applications on the grounds of insufficient waste-water infrastructure capacity. 

He referred to the Scheme of Delegation and pointed out that, where NI Water had lodged an objection to a local application where the officer recommendation was to approve, the decision must be brought to the Committee and could not be taken under the Scheme of Delegation.

He reported that there were 97 undetermined planning applications subject to NI Water objections, for which officers could, in theory, recommend for approval.  In accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, should all those applications be recommended for approval, all 97 applications would need to be reported to the Committee for a decision and would therefore  be logistically extremely difficult to report all 97 applications individually, potentially requiring several sittings of the Planning Committee to hear each of the applications, and would be both costly and time consuming, as well as causing further delays for applicants in circumstances where officers do not consider the objections from NI Water to be reasonable.

He explained to the Committee that NI Water had been concerned that a lack of infrastructure capacity would give rise to risk of environmental harm including pollution, flooding and adverse impact on existing property, and in some cases, NI Water was concerned that the application site may be hydrologically linked to Belfast Lough and may harm its water quality.

He stated that, despite requests, NI Water had not provided robust evidence to support its objections, including demonstration of actual specific impacts resulting from individual proposals that stems from their broad concerns outlined above.

The Planning Manager informed the Committee that the Council must be mindful that, were it to refuse planning permission based on NI Water’s concerns, it would need to provide robust evidence to the Planning Appeals Commission in the event that the applicant appeals the decision, and in the absence of robust evidence, it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission.

            He drew the Committee’s attention to the list of local applications which had been proposed to be delegated to officers to determine.

            The Committee agreed to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control, those local planning applications to which NI Water had objected, as set out at Appendix 1 of the report.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control provided the Committee with the following schedule of Planning Committee workshops:

            The Committee agreed to the updated Schedule of Planning Committee Workshops for the period August 2022 to August 2023.

            The information contained in the report associated with the following item is restricted in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 6 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

      Resolved – That the Committee agrees to exclude the members of the Press and public from the meeting during discussion of the item as, due to the nature of the item, there would be a disclosure of exempt information as described in Section 42(4) and Section 6 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control updated the Committee on the progress of the implementation of the new regional Planning IT System to be shared by Belfast City Council, nine other councils and the Department for Infrastructure. 

            She outlined the following elements of the project to the Committee:

·      Project Plan and implementation;

·      Contingency;

·      Configuration;

·      Change requests;

·      Project costs;

·      Intelligent Client Function;

·      Change and transition plans; and

·      Next steps.

            The Committee noted the content of the report and agreed that monthly updates on the project should be provided to future meetings.