Agenda and minutes

            An apology for inability to attend was reported from Councillor Hutchinson.

            Councillor Groogan declared an interest in item 2a, LA04/2019/1614/F - Redevelopment of existing all-weather playing field to provide new 3G flood-lit sports pitch, redevelopment of former tennis courts to provide new flood-lit multi use games area (MUGA pitch), pitch side fencing and ball-stop nets, car parking, landscaping and associated site works on land including and adjacent to the existing all-weather sports pitch at Stranmillis University College, in that she had spoken with residents and would be speaking in objection to the application. She confirmed that, after speaking on the item,  she would leave the room for the duration of the discussion and not take part in the vote.

            She also advised that, in relation to item 3, Havelock House, she had previously made representation in respect of the application and had engaged with objectors and, as such, would not take part in the discussion.

            Councillor McKeown advised that he had received a significant amount of correspondence from residents and had facilitated a meeting for the residents with the planners in relation to item 2a, LA04/2019/1614/F, however, as he had not expressed an opinion on the application, nor did he attend the residents’ meeting, he would participate in the discussion and vote.  In relation to Item 3, Havelock House, he also advised that he had listened to local residents in regards to the associated planning application but that, as he had not expressed a view in respect of it, he was content that he could participate in any discussion on the matter.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 15th September, the item had been deferred due to a number of technical issues which had occurred throughout the consideration of the item.  It was noted that the application would be considered from the beginning at a future meeting.

            The Chairperson advised the Members that, at that meeting, in light of the recently imposed restrictions due to the Covid 19 pandemic, it had agreed to receive two separate deputations from objectors, of up to five minutes each, and that the agent/applicant deputation would therefore be granted up to ten minutes to speak.

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with a detailed overview of the site and the proposed development. He outlined the main issues which had been considered in the assessment of the application, including:

·         the principle of the development of at the location;

·         visual impacts of the proposal;

·         impact on amenity / character of the area;

·         impact on built heritage;

·         impact on the natural environment;

·         impact on transport and other infrastructure; and

·         flood risk

            He explained that the site was located within the development limits and was identified as whiteland within the BUAP.  The Members were advised that the site abutted the Malone and Stranmillis Conservation Areas but fell within the Stranmillis Area of Townscape Character (ATC).   He explained that PPS6 and the PPS6 Addendum relating to ATC’s were therefore applicable.  He advised that, within the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2004 and draft BMAP 2015, the site was located within the development limit and, within dBMAP 2004, the site was located within a Local Landscape Policy Area (LLPA).

            He outlined that the main pitch, at the closest points, would be located 29metres from the nearest dwelling at 28 Beechlands, and approximately 51.6metres from the nearest dwelling in Cleaver Park.

            The Committee was advised that, whilst the proposal would result in the reduction of the playing surface area to allow for car parking facilities, those facilities were necessary and a policy requirement to support the proposal.

            He advised the Members that the proposal would not adversely impact on amenity, traffic, heritage assets or flooding. He explained that the proposed scale, form, massing and materials of structures proposed were considered acceptable and would not adversely impact on the local character of the area. The Committee was advised that existing trees within the site and around the site periphery, in addition to new planting, would filter views of the structures. The Members were advised that changing room facilities had originally been proposed but had been removed from the proposal in order to safeguard the heritage contribution of ancillary buildings.  On balance, he explained that the proposal would not result in detrimental visual impacts.

He explained that a number of conditions were necessary to mitigate impacts of the development, including the hours of operation of the facility and a restriction on the use of floodlighting between the months of October and February.

            He highlighted that, since the original report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3a

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0      Purpose of Report/Summary of Main Issues

1.1       Members will recall that the Planning Committee, at its meeting on 15th September, agreed that a letter should be forwarded to Historic Environment Division (HED) in the light of representations expressing a view that Havelock House should be listed and suggesting that a number of issues were not addressed when the building was previously considered for listing.  Furthermore HED have been asked to provide a response to representations received in respect of the current planning application.

1.2       Council received a response on Friday 9 October from HED outlining how they believe that they have correctly followed due process in assessing the building for statutory listing advising in this case that the building doesn’t meet the prescribed criteria. They also summarise their response to the current planning application and suggest that the Council could utilise its own statutory powers to locally list the building.

1.3       This report provides an overview of some of the key issues and explains why the suggested approach around local listing would not be appropriate in this instance.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       The Committee is requested to note:-

·         the update from HED set out in the report as confirmation that the building does not meet the criteria for statutory listing; and

·         the limitations in respect of the potential for local listing cannot be considered in this instance.

3.0       Main Report

            Key Issues

3.1       The Council, at its meeting on 15th September, agreed that a letter be forwarded to HED with the following motion:

            ‘In light of the fact objectors have made representations expressing concerns that Havelock House should be a listed building, raising some issues which were allegedly not addressed when the building was considered for listing last year, the Planning Committee requests that HED provide a detailed response to those representations to inform its decision making process in respect of the Havelock House planning application.’

3.2       The Committee may wish to note that Listed Buildings are those designated through listing as being of ‘special architectural or historic interest’ under Section 80 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.  A responsibility that was retained as a function of the Historic Environment Divisions (HED) within the Department for Communities (DfC).

3.3       The Second Survey of all of Northern Ireland's building stock, is currently underway, to update and improve on the first List of buildings of special architectural or historic interest a process which began in 1974.

3.4       Havelock House was not considered for a full survey in the first survey of buildings of special architectural or historic interest which ran between 1969 and 1997, nor was it considered for a full survey during the second survey of this area in 2011.

3.5       Following correspondence with a third party, which had included a listing request, the Department reviewed the record, visiting the building in July 2018. Following further correspondence, a presentation on the history of the building and its use as a television studio by a third  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a