Agenda and minutes

            No apologies were received.

            No declarations of interest were reported.

LA04/2020/0757/F Upgrade of existing gravel pitch to synthetic sand dressed hockey pitch, with floodlighting, fencing, acoustic barrier, storage container at West Pitch, Downey House, Pirrie Park Gardens.

LA04/2018/1411/F Upgrade of existing gravel pitch to synthetic sand dressed hockey pitch, with floodlighting, fencing, acoustic barrier, storage container at East Pitch, Downey House, Pirrie Park Gardens.

            The Committee agreed to undertake a pre-emptive site visit to the following sites:

·        LA04/2020/0757/F Upgrade of existing gravel pitch to synthetic sand dressed hockey pitch, with floodlighting, fencing, acoustic barrier, storage container at West Pitch, Downey House, Pirrie Park Gardens; and

·        LA04/2018/1411/F Upgrade of existing gravel pitch to synthetic sand dressed hockey pitch, with floodlighting, fencing, acoustic barrier, storage container at East Pitch, Downey House, Pirrie Park Gardens.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control provided the Committee with the following points of clarification on the issues which had been raised by Members at the Pre Determination Hearing:

Social Housing

·        the 20% social and affordable housing was a negotiated position in advance of the anticipated LDP policy with a requirement for 20% provision;

·        the previous Committee resolution was for 10% social housing at Academy Street – i.e. a single option;

·        the new recommendation allowed more flexibility – with strict limits on the provision of social/affordable before occupation of all of the development;

·        that flexibility would give 3 options: either in Academy Street; off-site, but within 300m of it; or on-site. All options were equal in planning terms and that there was no preference from officers on the final location. This was to allow for commercial flexibility and to ensure that no one site was held to ransom for the developer;

·        there were a number of sites within the 300m boundary which could accommodate such provision, without any zoning issues;

·        NIHE supported these three options, and acknowledged that there was no policy requirement for this currently;

·        the detail of the size, mix and final location of the social/affordable units was to be determined at Reserved Matters (RM) stage, which was standard practice in a 2 stage planning application process. It will also require Social Housing Provider and thus NIHE sign-off at an appropriate stage when the detail is known and to secure NIHE funding;

·        in regards to the Choice Housing relocation, this was a commercial arrangement between the developer and Choice. The planning process would be to secure adequate re-provision of this – which the Section 76 Agreement would do. Again, as it was standard practice to secure it at this stage, with full details by RM stage, or through the Section 76 process if off site.

North Street

·        As previously confirmed, this was being designed as being fully pedestrianised, which includes DfI sign off;

·        DfI had included emergency provision for access by emergency vehicles; and

·        if wider plans for the city centre came to fruition, this would be in the context of North Street being fully pedestrianised, if approved. Consideration of the outline application should be limited to the detail of the application, and not the wider city positon and that would address the context of any approvals that existed.

 “Tribeca”

·        For clarity, the Notice of Motion regarding the name of the development was noted by the Council in January 2019, but that it was not a material consideration relevant to the determination of the application.

Covid 19 Impact

·        in terms of the level of commercial provision, and the impact of Covid19, the planning system worked within a 20-30 year policy formulation context, and allowed for various fluctuations in economic conditions;

·        we had the context of a Belfast Agenda and an emerging LDP supporting ambitious growth of the city;

·        it was important that the planning system achieved a longer term vision to ensure that the city was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

            The Planning Manager provided an overview of the application to the Committee. 

            He explained that officers were recommending refusal of the applications for the following six reasons:

1.     The proposed new build at the rear, by reason of its design, form and scale, would be over-dominant in relation to Wilton House and the adjacent terrace and would be detrimental to the street-scene;

2.     Insufficient evidence had been submitted detailing the current condition of the Listed building and survival of the historic fabric and how important features were to be conserved, reused and repaired. The proposal would therefore result in unacceptable harm to the Listed building’s essential character through potential loss of historic fabric and elements of significance;

3.     The proposed new build at the rear, by reason of its design, form and scale, would be over-dominant in relation to Wilton House and the adjacent terrace, to the detriment of the setting of surrounding Listed Buildings;

Furthermore, by reason of its design, form and scale of the new build, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

4.     The proposed development would be served by inadequate private and communal amenity space and would provide inadequate living conditions for future occupants;

5.     The proposed development would provide a highly unsatisfactory living environment for future occupants by reason of poor levels of light to the windows and rooms in the rear north facing elevation of Wilton House and south facing elevation of the new build at the rear, and in the inner courtyard; and

6.     The proposal provided inadequate covered bicycle parking spaces in a suitable location to off-set the absence of on-street vehicle parking provision, and, moreover, the application failed to demonstrate that adequate provision was made for disabled parking.

            A Member explained that he had concerns regarding the refusal reasons for the application.  He stated that, in relation to reasons 1 and 3, he felt that the new build element was not over dominant and was subservient; that, in relation to reason 2, this could be dealt with through conditions; that, in relation to reason 4, the vacant, city centre building should be brought back into use and that a balance had to be struck with nearby amenity spaces; that, in relation to reason 5, the applicant had changed the orientation of the windows to provide additional daylight; and that, in relation to reason 6, subscriptions would be provided to residents to the Belfast Bikes scheme and that private bikes could be stored within the apartments.

            The Planning Manager advised the Committee that, in response to refusal reasons 1 and 3, the professional advisors, including Planning officers, Urban Design officer, the Conservation officer and HED, believed that the proposed new build at the rear would be over-dominant and unsympathetic in relation to Listed Wilton House and the adjacent terrace, to the detriment of the setting of surrounding Listed Buildings.  He explained that the blue grey brick materials proposed would make the new build element conspicuous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b