Agenda and minutes

An apology was reported on behalf of Councillor Bunting. 

            The minutes of the meeting of 15th 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 4th April, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

Regarding item 7.g on the agenda, i.e., LA04/2016/0314/F - 2 storey rear extension at 41 Owenvarragh Park, Councillor McAteer indicated that she knew the applicant.

            Pursuant to its decisions at the meeting of 15th March, it was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on Wednesday, 6th April in respect of the following applications:

LA04/2015/0419/F - Mixed use development to include 647 standard bedrooms and 93 studio rooms managed student residential building with ground floor shop at 78 College Avenue.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Department for Regional Development, which related to the proposed abandonment of a Public Right of Way at Wandsworth Court.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Department for Regional Development, which related to the abandonment of a Public Right of Way at Thorburn Road.

            With the permission of the Chairperson, the Democratic Services Officer informed the Committee that correspondence had been received from the Department of the Environment confirming the listing of council owned property of special architectural or historic interest, as follows:-

·        Bandstand at Woodvale Park;

·        Parliamentary Boundary Post, beside 14 Gilnahirk Road; and

·        Parliamentary Boundary Post, beside 109 King’s Road.

Noted.

            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 delegated authority by the Director of Planning and Place and the Town Solicitor between 9th March and 12th April.

The Development Planning and Policy Manager provided an overview of the Department’s performance to date.

Noted.

(Councillor Campbell entered the meeting at this point.)

(Councillors Heading and McDonough-Brown had left the meeting whilst the following Miscellaneous Items were under consideration.)

            The Committee was advised that correspondence had been received from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) seeking the Council’s views in respect of proposals which had been formulated for the listing of a number of buildings in Belfast.

            The Committee was reminded that Article 80 (3) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 required the agency to consult with the Council before placing any building on the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed with the Agency’s proposals to list the following buildings:

·        217 Holywood Road, Belfast, Co. Down, BT4 2DH;

·        Shaftesbury Square Reformed Presbyterian Church, 72 Dublin Road, Belfast, BT2 7HP; and

·        683 Antrim Road, Belfast, Co. Antrim, BT15 4EG.

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the Department of the Environment’s consultation paper:A Consultation on Ecclesiastical Exemption, which had been published on the Council’s website:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       A consultation paper has been issued by the DOE containing a proposal to end the system of ecclesiastical exemption in Northern Ireland whereby churches do not need to apply for listed buildings consent.   The purpose of the paper is to obtain the agreement of the Planning Committee on the position of Planning Service not to object to the proposed change.  The closing date for responding to the consultation is the 13 June 2016. 

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       Committee is requested

·        To consider the information provided

·        To agree to with Planning Service opinion not to object to the proposed change to remove ecclesiastical exemption.   

3.0       Main report

            Key issues

3.1       Listed Churches / other places of worship are exempt under planning legislation from the requirement to obtain listed building consent.  This is known as ‘Ecclesiastical Exemption’.  Northern Ireland is in line with the rest of the UK in this respect. 

3.2       Internal procedures operated by church bodies in other parts of the UK equate to a listed building consent regime.  These procedures have not been operated by church bodies here. 

3.3       This has lead, in some instances, to the loss of historic fabric and elements of significance that form part of the essential character of these buildings.  45 churches have been delisted due to inappropriate alterations. 

3.4       NIEA therefore propose to remove the ecclesiastical exemption currently enjoyed by churches here.  The proposed change has resulted from a recommendation of a Ministerial committee set up to examine this issue, comprising DOE officers and Historic Buildings Council Members.

3.5       This change will not require amendment to the legislation but would be brought in via Departmental Direction.   

3.6       The effect of the change will mean that listed building consent will be required for external and internal changes proposed that would affect the character of the church building. 

3.7       This would bring NI into line with practice in the ROI.  Often full applications are required for works proposed by churches and so the proposed change will not in the majority of cases result in additional expense in terms of preparing architects drawings. 

3.8       There is no fee in respect of a Listed Building Consent application. 

3.9       NIEA proposes to prepare detailed guidance on works to churches which would be published in parallel to the removal of the exemption. 

3.10     The Planning Committee is requested to note the above and agree with the position of Planning Service not to object to the proposed change. 

            Proposed Planning Service Response to Consultation Paper

3.11     Belfast City Council notes the content of the Consultation Paper on Ecclesiastical Exemption.  There is no objection to the proposed change to remove ecclesiastical exemption and require listed building consent when needed for alterations to places of worship.  It is assumed that DOE in proposing this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Committee considered the following report, together with the associated consultation paper: Proposals for a new Historic Environment Fund which had been published on the Council’s website:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       A consultation paper has been issued by the DOE containing proposals on how funding of the historic environment through heritage projects will be administered.   The purpose of the paper is to obtain the agreement of the Planning Committee on the response of Planning Service as contained in this report.   The closing date for responding to the consultation is the 6 June 2016. 

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       Committee is requested

·        To consider the information provided

·        To agree to with the proposed Planning Service consultation response. 

3.0       Main report

            Key points from Consultation  Paper

3.1       The paper acknowledges an environment of funding cuts for heritage projects.  

3.2       The objective of the consultation is to seek views on the funding of access, enjoyment and protection of the historic environment. 

3.3       The paper notes that the historic environment in NI produces lower levels of output, employment and GVA per capita than neighbouring jurisdictions. 

3.4       The consultation states that the historic environment can be used to the benefit of local communities with very significant economic, social and environmental benefits; public funding often provides a lever for wider investment

3.5       The paper proposes 4 strands of funding with % allocations of the fund to each –

            Heritage Research (10 – 20%) – research and publications

            Heritage Regeneration (10 – 30%) – community led projects (e.g. Trusts), council led projects at scheduled monuments, heritage at risk projects – e.g. acquisition by Building Preservation Trusts, including listed buildings on the HAR owned by Councils.  Listed buildings not at risk in council ownership will not be eligible.  

            Heritage Repair (40 – 60%) - scheduled monuments, listed buildings (up to 20% of project costs), historic windows repair (up to 35% of costs), thatched buildings, small places of worship fund

            Heritage Revival (10 – 20%) – annual heritage rewards, historic environment support fund, skills development training, school trips

3.6       Funding proposals will be set out against defined criteria –

            Conservation and enhancement of the historic environment

            Economic Impact – contribution to tourism and to supporting communities

            Economic Impact – supporting construction and associated industries

            Social benefits – creating broader and deeper understanding of our heritage

            Social benefits – enhancing public engagement with the historic environment

            These are consistent with the principles of sustainable management of the historic environment.

3.7       Proposals will also assessed against universal conservation principles of –

            minimum intervention, maximum retention of historic fabric, clarity, reversibility and sustainability

3.8       Funding will be capped at £50,000  though batching of applications for high value projects will be possible

3.9       In the event of restricted funding priority will be given to structures on the HAR, thatched buildings and buildings owned by applicants in receipt of enhanced rates of grant. 

            Proposed Planning Service Response to Consultation Paper

3.10     In broad terms Council endorses the overall approach  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the associated documents which had been published on the Council’s website:

“1.0  Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1   The Minister of the Environment committed to undertake a review of regional strategic planning policy for development in the countryside following the publication of Strategic Planning Statement (SPPS) ‘Planning for Sustainable Development’ in its final form in 2015. Members will be aware the SPPS consolidated some twenty separate policy publications into one document, setting out strategic planning policy in relation to a wide range of subject policies, including regional policy for Development in the Countryside. A copy of the SPPS Subject Policy ‘Development in the Countryside’ is available on the Council’s website.

1.2    The aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the Regional Development Strategy 2035.

1.3    The current strategic policy approach is to cluster, consolidate and group new development with existing established buildings and promote the re-use of previously used buildings. The SPPS identifies a range of development types (both residential and non-residential) which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and provides that other types of development will be considered as part of the development plan process in line with the other policies set out within the SPPS.

1.4    The purpose of the report is to make members aware of the Calls for Evidence for Development of the Countryside and seek approval for the draft response outlined in paragraphs 3.2 and detailed on the Council’s website.

2.0    Recommendations

2.1    Members are asked to consider and, if appropriate agree the draft response to the Call for Evidence: Development in the Countryside outlined in paragraph 3.2 and detailed on the Council’s website.

3.0    Main report

3.1   The Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to a ‘Call for Evidence’ for Development of the Countryside. The ‘Call for Evidence’ process will improve the DoE’s understanding of the operation and impact of the existing strategic policy and provide up-to-date evidence on the social, environmental and economic impacts of development in the countryside. The DoE is particularly keen on views on how strategic planning policy should assist with achieving sustainable development to support vibrant rural communities, without compromising our natural and built environment, and other assets of acknowledged importance.

3.2    Key Issues

         The Council supports the broad aims of the SPPS with regard to Development in the Countryside to ‘manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities.’ The following are the key issues from the draft Council response to DoE’s Call for Evidence – Development in the Countryside (copy available on the Council’s website). It is recommended that Council:

·        Supports the intention to maintain sustainable rural communities.

·        Recognises the value of Northern Ireland’s unique natural resource, its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the consultation and proposed draft response to the Department of the Environment’s Call for Evidence: Renewable Energy, and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) current Policy for ‘Renewable Energy Development’:

“1.0  Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1   The Minster of the Environment committed to undertake a review of regional strategic planning policy for renewable energy following the publication of Strategic Planning Statement (SPPS) ‘Planning for Sustainable Development’ in its final form in 2015. Members will be aware the SPPS consolidated some twenty separate policy publications into one document, setting out strategic planning policy in relation to a wide range of subject policies, including regional policy for Renewable Energy Development. A copy of the SPPS Subject Policy ‘Renewable Energy’ is available on the Council’s website.

1.2    The aim of the SPPS in relation to renewable energy is to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve Northern Ireland’s renewable energy targets and to realise the benefits of renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. The regional strategic objectives for renewable energy are to:

·        ensure that the environmental, landscape, visual and amenity - impacts associated with or arising from renewable energy development are adequately addressed;

·        ensure adequate protection of the Region’s built and natural, and cultural heritage features; and

·        facilitate the integration of renewable energy technology into the design, siting and layout of new development and promote greater application of the principles of Passive Solar Design.

1.3    Depending, in part, upon the evidence received following the ‘Calls for Evidence’, the scope of the forthcoming reviews will be refined to focus on the key matters that need to be addressed. The subsequent reviews will be the subject of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

1.4    The purpose of the report is to update and make members aware of the Calls for Evidence for Renewable Energy Development and seek members approval on the proposed draft response set out in paragraph 3.5.

2.0    Recommendations

2.1   Members are asked to consider and, if appropriate agree the proposed draft response to the Call for Evidence: Renewable Energy (copy available on the Council’s website).

3.0    Main report

3.1    Key Issues

         The Department of Environment (DoE) issued a formal ‘Call for Evidence’ for Renewable Energy Development. The ‘Call for Evidence’ process seeks to gather the necessary information from interested parties and their views or concerns as part of a review of strategic planning policy which will influence future Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. The DoE through the review is calling greater understanding of the operation and impact of the existing strategic policy and evidence on the social, environmental and economic impacts of developments. The DoE is particularly keen on views in relation to how strategic planning policy can assist in addressing potential amenity issues that may arise as a result of facilitating all types of renewable energy development (e.g. wind,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the associated documents which had been published on the Council’s website:

“1.0  Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1   This report seeks to provide the background on the Call for Evidence on Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration and seek members’ approval for a Council response.

1.2    The Department of the Environment (DOE) has issued a ‘Call for Evidence’ to inform the future approach to Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration as set out in Part 16 of the schedule to the Planning (General Development Order) Northern Ireland (2015).

1.3    The ‘Call for Evidence’ is to support the forthcoming review of the existing provisions on permitted development rights for mineral exploration and the balance between operational activity and environmental protection.

1.4    The closing date for submission is the 13th May 2016.  The proposed draft response is available on the Council’s website for consideration.

2.0   Recommendations

2.1   Members are asked to:

·        Consider the draft document, ‘Draft Council response to DoE’s Call for Evidence: Permitted Development Rights of Minerals Exploration’ and if appropriate approve its submission to the DoE as the Council’s response to the Call for Evidence. (copy available on the Council’s website)

3.0    Main report

         Key Issues

3.1    The aim of the call for evidence is part of a process of gathering the necessary information to inform the subsequent review of permitted development rights for mineral exploration.  It is in response to concerns raised from an elected member and seeks to gather information on the operation and impact of the permitted development rights which currently exist alongside up-to- date evidence on the social, environmental and economic impacts of exploratory development for minerals going forward.

3.2    Members may recall that there was a Notice of Motion on permitted development to conduct exploratory petroleum drilling at Woodburn Reservoir in Carrickfergus at the September Council meeting.  Council agreed to write to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Minister of the Environment and Mid and East Antrim Council to review the decision to grant permitted development for exploratory drilling in Woodburn Forest and for the Minister of Environment to amend the law to ensure petroleum exploration required planning consent.  (Copy available on the Council’s website)

3.3    The response from DETI confirmed that whilst significant environmental information was provided by InfraStrata Plc as part of the license process a formal SEA was not deemed necessary at the time of issuing PL1/10 to the company. 

3.4    The Minister of Environment subsequently launched the ‘Call for Evidence’ on the review of Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration to provide the opportunity to express views on the operation of the planning processes. The evidence will inform the Department’s understanding of the operation and impact of the existing permitted development rights set out in Part 16 of the Schedule to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 and provide the opportunity for the Council to provide views on whether the existing development rights for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

(Councillors Heading and McDonough-Brown returned to the Committee table at this point.)

(Councillor Campbell had left the meeting whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 15th March, it had deferred consideration of an application for a mixed use development of 647 standard bedrooms and 93 studio rooms managed student residential building, with a ground floor shop at 78 College Avenue.  That decision had been taken to enable the Committee to undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site and to assess the issues which had been raised in respect of the size and scale of the proposed building, together with its potential impact on the surrounding residential areas.

            The Committee approved the application and, in accordance with Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Place, in conjunction with the Town Solicitor, to enter into discussions with the applicant to explore the scope of any Planning Agreements which might be realised by way of developer contributions.

            Arising from discussion, the Committee also agreed that a workshop would be provided regarding Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2015.

(Councillor Campbell returned to the Committee table at this point).

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for the demolition and clearance of an existing site for the construction of a replacement Policing Museum, with associated coach set down and pedestrian access.

            She highlighted that the site was located within the development limits of Belfast, in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan and was identified as whiteland.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered an application for the retention, conversion and extension of a former convent house for six one-bedroom and six two-bedroom apartments (12 in total).

            The case officer advised that additional information had been received from the Ulster Architectural and Heritage Society regarding the reinstatement of the gothic arch door as part of the rebuilding of the historic 2.5 metre high wall to the front of the building. She advised that this could be included within the conditions of the decision notice as part of the planning approval recommendation.

            The case officer highlighted that the site was located within the Linen Conservation Area and that the principle of the development was acceptable, given the fact that the proposal was bringing a listed building back into use which would not conflict with the area plan designations.

            The Committee granted approval, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and the aforementioned additional condition.

(Councillor Heading had left the meeting whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee was apprised of the principle aspects of an application which sought permission for a proposed Centralised Anaerobic Digestion (CAD) plant, combined heat and power (CHP) plant, ancillary plant and site works.

            The case officer advised that the site was located within the development limits of Belfast in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) and the proposed use was considered to be acceptable at this location. She highlighted that the proposal was located within an area that contained employment uses and was not located in or abutting a primarily residential area.

            After discussion, the Committee granted approval, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for the demolition of an existing public house and the erection of 12 apartments (2 and a half/ 3 storey) with a service area and courtyard to the rear.

            The Committee granted approval, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered an application for a residential development comprising of eight detached dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping.

            The case officer outlined the principle aspects of the proposal and explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the following grounds:

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that it would, if permitted, result in the overdevelopment of the site due to its inappropriate siting, layout, scale, form, massing and design, causing unacceptable damage to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would fail to provide a quality and sustainable residential environment;

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy LC1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 (Addendum) Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas in that it would, if permitted, result in a significantly higher density and a development pattern which was not in keeping with this established residential area;

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy QD1 of Planning Policy statement 7: "Quality Residential Environments" in that it would, if permitted, result in the overdevelopment of the site causing harm to the living conditions of existing and prospective residents through dominance and overlooking resulting in a loss of residential amenity, and would be harmful to the living conditions of prospective residents due to the poor outlook. The proposed development would therefore fail to create a quality residential environment; and

·        The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking; Policy AMP 7, Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements, and Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments, in that it would, if permitted, prejudice the safety and convenience of road users since the applicant had failed to demonstrate that adequate provision could be made clear of the highway for the turning of service vehicles that would be attracted to the site.

            The Committee refused the application for the reasons as set out in the case officer’s report.

(Councillor McDonough-Brown had left the meeting whilst the item was under consideration.)

(Councillor McAteer, who had declared an interest in this application, took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for a two storey rear extension.

            It was noted that the application, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, had been presented to the Committee since the applicant was a member of Council staff.

            The Committee granted approval, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report.