Agenda and minutes

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

            The minutes of the meetings of 18th and 20th May 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 June, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor Murphy declared an interest in Item 6g, namely LA04/2020/1593/F - Refurbishment works to Marrowbone Park, in that he had been involved with the project at different stages and had spoken with officers about the design of the scheme.  He left the meeting for the duration of the item and did not participate in the vote.

The Members noted that a site visit had been undertaken to the following site, on 3rd June:

·        LA04/2020/1363/F - 21 apartments and 3 retail units with ancillary lobby space, refuse storage, bicycle storage and amenity space between 173 Newtownards Road and 1-5 Templemore Avenue.

            The Members 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 Members noted a list of decisions which had been taken under the delegated authority of the Strategic Director of Place and Economy, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 10th May and 7th June.

            The Members noted that correspondence had been received from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), advising that:

·        a vesting Order had become operative on 24th May, 2021, in respect of Land at 167 to 175 Broadway, and that it was now within NIHE ownership; and

·        it had applied for a Vesting Order for Land at Alloa Street, between the former properties of 170/168 Manor Street and 49 Alloa Street.

            The Members of the Committee agreed to recommend to the Chief Executive that they had no objections to the Orders.

The Planning Manager (Development Management) provided the Committee with a detailed overview of the Planning Service’s performance in 2020/2021.  He explained that the report provided statistics on the progress across the three statutory targets for major development applications, local development applications and enforcement cases.  It also provided information relating to performance against the Council’s corporate targets.

The Committee was advised that a total of 2,515 valid applications had been received between 1st April and 31st March 2021, which was an 8% decrease compared to the same period for the previous year.  Compared to the same period last year, he explained that the number of Local Applications which had been received was broadly similar while the number of Majorapplications was down 12%.  He highlighted to the Committee that “other development”, such as Certificates of Lawful Use Development and Discharge of Condition applications, were not included in statutory performance targets but currently made up 59% of applications received.  

He outlined that the Planning Service had received 77 Pre-Application Discussions (PADs), including 12 PADs for Major development and 65 for Local development. 29 PADs had been concluded, all for Local development.

The Members were advised that 2,132 decisions were issued between 1st April 2020 and 31st March 2021, which was 16% less than the same period in 2019/20.  95% of applications had been approved.

The Planning Manager outlined that the Statutory target was that major planning applications were processed from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date within an average of 30 weeks.

The Members were advised that 28 major applications had been received in the year 2020/2021, which was four fewer than the previous year.   The Planning Manager explained that 40 major applications had been processed during the period which was 38% more than in the same period last year and the second highest since the Council became a Planning Authority in 2015.  He highlighted that performance was 44.2 weeks, slightly down on 37 weeks from the previous year, however, the regional average was 61.8 weeks.

He reported that 1,368 local applications were decided or withdrawn in the same period, which was 234 fewer than the same period last year. The Members were advised that, last year, the average processing time had been 14 weeks, whereas this year it was 19 weeks, which was 4 weeks over the target of 15 weeks.  He explained that the regional average processing time was 17.8 weeks.

The Members were advised that the largest number of local applications processed related to householder applications, such as domestic extensions, conservatories, loft conversions, garages and outbuildings.  He reported that there were 676 householder applications received, which was a 26% increase on the previous year. He explained that it was reflective of a nationwide increase which was almost certainly linked to the pandemic and people’s desire for more accommodation.

In relation to Statutory Consultee Performance, he reported that the Department for Infrastructure had established a Planning Forum which was examining ways to improve the role of statutory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

            The information contained in the reports associated with the following two items 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 these items as, due to the nature of the items, 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 Members were advised that, following a rigorous selection process, Ms. Kate Bentley, had been appointed to the post of Director of Planning and Building Control.

The Members of the Committee agreed to hold a remote Special Meeting on Thursday, 24 June at 1.00pm, for the purpose of considering the Chancery House application (LA04/2019/2653/F).

A Member expressed concern that Members had not been given long enough to consider the document which was over 200 pages.

Moved by Councillor Collins

Seconded by Councillor Hanvey and

Resolved – That the Members agree to defer the item to the Special Meeting of the Members of the Committee, to take place on Thursday 24th June; and, in the meantime, that officers write to the Department for Infrastructure, urging them to share the contents of the Section 76 Agreement with local residents, in order to help facilitate the consultation process.

THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

IN PURSUANCE OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO HER BY THE COUNCIL

ON 4TH MAY, 2021

            The Members noted that the following application had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·        LA04/2020/1158/F - Demolition of existing building and erection of 65No Apartments including 20% social housing at 1-5 Redcar Street.

            Moved by Councillor Groogan

            Seconded by Councillor O’Hara and

         Resolved – That the Members of the Committee agree to recommend to the Chief Executive to 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, particularly in relation to the Area of Townscape Character and the Conservation Area, the amenity space and the fire access.

            The Members 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 Principal Planning officer provided the Members with the details of the application.

The Principal Planning officer reported that the application was scheduled for presentation to the Planning Committee on 17th April, 2021.  However, following the publication of the agenda for that meeting, the agent had requested that consideration of the application be deferred to allow for the submission of a viability assessment and an updated redline to enable further discussion in relation to public realm improvements.  At the April meeting, the Members had been asked to consider the request for a deferral but officers had highlighted that a viability assessment would not address the fundamental design issues with the proposal. At that meeting the Committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application, to allow the developer to submit additional information.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that further information had been submitted on 7th May 2021, including:

·        Further justification of design and 3D visuals showing potential design amendments and a case presented to suggest the changes would be detrimental to the resultant character of the building and the area.

·        Confirmation sought as to the outcome of consultations in relation to public realmcontributions, as per the Developer Contribution Framework, and a reluctance to extend a red line in the absence of any demonstrated need for such improvements.

·        Confirmation that the developer was willing to enter into a Section 76 Agreement to facilitate a contribution towards wider public realm improvement schemes within the area.

·        A letter from Savills, whereby it was argued that the buildings did not make a material contribution to the conservation area as their removal and appropriate replacement would not have an adverse effect on the area. It was claimed that efforts were made to market the site and the only interest was based on the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment. It was also claimed that the spaces within the existing buildings were deemed unsuitable, and what was felt as restricted access to two of the buildings made them unsuitable for modern office providers.

He explained that officers remained of the opinion that:

·        any suggested design changes would be to the benefit of the overall character of the building, the appearance of the conservation area and would reduce the impact on the adjacent listed Ulster Hall;

·        a consultation response from DFC remained outstanding, however officers remained of the opinion that the red line should be extended to facilitate public realm improvements in the area immediately surrounding the proposed building. That was a standard requirement for such schemes within the city centre to mitigate the development and to enhance the character and appearance of the area;

·        it was considered that insufficient information had been submitted in terms of the overall viability of the scheme, and the merits for removing the existing buildings which Officers considered made a positive contribution to the character of the Linen Conservation Area.  Policy BH14 of PPS6 was clear that when a building made a positive contribution, the presumption was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13b

The Principal Planning officer provided the Members with the details of the application for 21 apartments and three retail units within a single building which ranged from four to six storeys in height.

She explained that the application was due to be considered by the Committee on 18th May but that it was deferred so that Members could gain an understanding of the context of the site through a site visit.  The Committee had undertaken a site visit on 3rd June.

The Members were advised that the site was located within the development limits for Belfast in both the BUAP 2001 and the draft BMAP 2015. The site was within a housing action area in the BUAP and fell within the draft Templemore Avenue Area of Townscape Character.

She reported that the main issues which had been considered in the analysis of the application included the principle of the proposal at that location; the design, layout and impact on the character and appearance of the area; the impact on residential amenity; impact on built heritage; access, parking, and transport; infrastructure capacity and impact on human health.

While the principle of the proposal and the proposed use were considered acceptable, she explained that it would result in overdevelopment of the site and would be out of character with the area. She also advised the Members that the proposal was contrary to the SPPS and PPS 7, in that it would result in an overly dominant building which would cause unacceptable damage to the local character due to the height, scale, massing, thereby resulting in overdevelopment of the site.

It was also reported that the proposal was contrary to draft BMAP Arterial Route Policy AR02, which stated that building heights and massing should be appropriate to the scale of the street and should generally be two to three storeys high.  The proposed amenity provision was inadequate and inappropriate and was therefore contrary to the SPPS and PPS7, in that the development would create undesirable living conditions for prospective residents.  The Members were advised that the proposal would impact on the setting of the listed buildings and, as a result, failed to comply with PPS 6.

She outlined that the scheme was not subject to a Pre Application Discussion (PAD) and that the applicant did not take the opportunity during the process to address the issues raised.

The Members were advised that 11 representations and a petition of support with 682 signatures had been received to date.  She detailed that the points raised in the letters of support included that the proposal would help to regenerate the area; that the scale of the building should be approved as it was a gateway building on a brownfield site and would enhance the appearance of a derelict site; housing provision; economic and community benefits; and that Cornerstone Ltd’s work was of a high standard.

In respect of the impact on parking and traffic, DfI Roads had expressed no objections. Rivers Agency had stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13c

            (Councillor McCullough left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            (Councillors Murphy and McMullan did not participate in the vote on this item as they had not been present when it had previously been presented to the Committee)

            The Principal Planning officer reminded the Members that the application had been presented to the Committee on 15thDecember 2020, where it was deferred for further consideration of the roads issues.  At the meeting held on 16th March, the item was deferred for a second time, to request that DfI Roads would carry out a site visit.

The Principal Planning officer explained that DFI Roads had visited the site on two occasions, on 13th May at 5pm and again on 26th May at 8.30pm.  She outlined that DfI Roads had considered the busiest time on the road network during the evening peak period to be between 4:30pm-6pm, and that the second visit, at 8.30pm, had allowed for the evening peak to pass and for residential parking to have been established.

The Members were advised of that DfI Roads position remained unchanged, and it had raised no objection to the proposal.  It was the Department’s position that the proposal would not ‘prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic’.

She reminded the Members that, in respect of the principle of the proposal at that location, the application site fell within an HMO Development Node as designated within the HMO Subject Plan for Belfast (2015). She reported that Policy HM0 3 stated that planning permission would only be granted along the frontages of designated HMO Development Nodes, providing it did not include HMO development at ground floor level within a designated commercial node or shopping area. As the site was not within a designated commercial node or shopping area, the ground floor was not required to be commercial or shopping. The proposal was also in line with Policy HMO 6 as the criteria within that policy were either met or were not relevant.

The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions.

The Principal Planning officer provided the Members with an overview of the major application which comprised two sites either side of Montgomery Road and adjacent to the Castlereagh Road. 

He advised the Members of the key issues in the assessment of the proposal, which included the principle of a major foodstore at that location; the loss of existing industrial land; design and layout considerations; impact on amenity / character of the area; impact on transport and other infrastructure and impact on the natural environment.

The Members were advised that the proposal constituted an increase of 397sqm of convenience and 198sqm of comparison floorspace on the existing store, which was to be relocated from its current location to the factory site to the north.  The Principal planning officer explained that the site was outside any designated retail centres identified within both the BUAP and dBMAP.

He reported that, following assessment of the economic information, on balance, it was considered that the majority of trade would be drawn from unprotected locations and, as such, the scale of impact on protected centres was not likely to be significant.

At the time of writing the report, there were no sites available that could facilitate the proposal, largely due to the size of store proposed, and it therefore met the sequential test.

It was felt that the proposal would provide regeneration benefits in terms of restoring a vacant site to active economic use. He advised that it might provide substantial community benefits, including in terms of job creation and improved built form and associated public realm, if all the business units were to become operational on an ongoing basis.

The agent had indicated that the proposal would result in the following economic impacts:

·        the construction costs of the entire project will be around £8million, which would be a significant benefit to the local construction industry;

·        the proposed store would support 13 new jobs;

·        the proposed Class B2 & B4 units had the potential to create 87 full time equivalent positions;

·        there would be an increase in rates revenue for the Council of around £300,000+ per annum.

In order to secure the retention of business/industrial use at the site and to offset the loss of such uses in substitution for the proposed retail use, it was fundamental that the conversion works of the existing Lidl building were provided prior to the new supermarket use commencing. As highlighted in the BCC LDP response, it was necessary to secure that by planning agreement under Section 76 of the Planning Act. He added that it was also considered necessary to restrict permitted development use rights for the business/industrial units, in order that the Council could retain control of operations at the site and to maintain appropriate amenity via planning condition.

The Members were advised that all consultees had responded with no objections, apart from Invest NI who had not yet responded, despite numerous reminders having been issued.

The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13e

The Senior Planning officer drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items Pack, where a letter had been received from Environmental Consultants providing further information on gas mitigation and points of clarification in response to Environmental Health concerns. He explained that the Environmental Health Department had since advised that it was content with the mitigation measures proposed.

The Members were also advised that the Social Housing element of the Section 76 Agreement had been omitted from the Committee Report.  He outlined that a Section 76 clause would be applied, requiring 100% social housing provision which had meant a subsequent reduction in parking standards.

The Members were provided with the details of the application.  They were advised of the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposed development, including the acceptability of residential use at that location; demolition in an Area of Townscape Character (ATC); impact on the character and appearance of the ATC; Scale, Massing and Design; open space provision; traffic and parking; contamination; flooding and drainage; wastewater treatment and developer obligations.

The Senior Planning officer explained that the principle of demolition of the existing buildings and new residential development was acceptable given the extant permission on the site.  The Members were advised that the additional 8 units proposed were located within the main block and had resulted in additional floorspace on the upper floor above the approved rear annex. The location of the additional mass ensured there would be no detrimental visual impact when viewed from the street.  The minor elevation changes to the Tates Avenue elevation ensured that the proposal continued to enhance the character of the ATC.

He outlined that any additional windows were located so that separation distances and screening provided by the parts of the proposed building would ensure that there would be no impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.  He added that the removal of the balconies and expanses of glazing also improved the relationship with the adjacent properties, particularly those to either side on Tates Avenue.

In relation to car parking, he advised that 30 spaces were proposed in the basement, whereas 73 spaces had been proposed in the extant permission. He outlined that the reduction in spaces had been agreed between planners, DFI Roads and the planning agent, in light of the fact that the apartments would be social housing, where it was widely accepted that uptake of parking spaces was significantly less.  A parking survey had been carried out which considered the uptake of car parking in similar sized social housing sites and had taken into account on-street parking availability (not on Tate’s Avenue) as well as the site’s proximity to the amenities on the Lisburn Road.  A Travel Plan was also proposed including green travel measures such as Travel Cards for three years, a cycle user scheme and a subsidy towards a Car Club.  He advised that DFI had advised that it was now content with the Travel Plan.

He reported that a response from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13f

            (Councillor Murphy, having declared an interest in this item, left the meeting for the duration of the item and did not participate in the vote.)

            The Principal Planning officer presented the details of the Belfast City Council application to the Members.

            The key issues which had been considered during its assessment included the principle of use on the site; the design and layout; the impact on amenity and character of the area; impact on natural and built heritage; access, movement, parking, transport and road safety; flood risk; landscaping and other environmental matters.

            He outlined that the site was located within an existing public park facility and was identified as an “Area of Existing Open Space” within (Draft) Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2004 and BMAP 2015 and, “Lands reserved for Landscape Amenity or Recreation use” in the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP). The application site was also within a Local Landscape Policy Area (LLPA) as per (Draft) BMAP 2004.

            The Members were advised that the proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the SPPS, BUAP 2001, Draft BMAP 2015, Planning Policy Statement 2, Planning Policy Statement 3, Planning Policy Statement 6, Planning Policy Statement 8, and Planning Policy Statement 15.

He reported that Environmental Health, Northern Ireland Water, BCC Tree Officers, BCC Parks and Recreation, DFI Roads Service, DFI Rivers Agency, Historic Environment Division (Historic Monuments), DAERA Water Management Unit, DAERA Regulation Unit and DAERA Natural Environment Division had raised no issues of concern, subject to conditions.

            A Member asked for further information regarding the new inclusive, multi-age playground and whether it included a Changing Places facility.  The Planning Manager advised the Members that while those were not planning considerations that he would ask the Physical Programmes Department to provide the Member with further information in relation to the facilities which were to be included.

            The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the wording of conditions.

            (Councillor Murphy returned to the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            The Members were provided with the details of the application which was in receipt of Council funding.

The retrospective application was for a retaining wall to facilitate the new Toboggan run development at the Forest Park. The Members were reminded that planning permission for the Toboggan run development had been granted in April 2019 (Ref: LA04/2018/2784/F).

The Members were advised that the site was currently designated as existing open space in the adopted Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) 2001 and Draft BMAP. The use as open space would remain as existing with the retaining wall located along the approved Toboggan run.

The NIEA, Rivers Agency, and the Tree and Landscape team had been consulted. The Members were advised that NIEA had sought further information and, following the submission of this, had no concerns. The other consultees had no objections.

            The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions.

            The Members considered the details of the Primary School application whereby the Council would be providing funding for the proposal.

The Members were advised that the multi-purpose building would be a single storey with a flat roof and would comprise of two main rooms approx. 60sqm and 20sqm. Toilets and a storage area would be incorporated within the building. The associated site works included several raised planting beds and an area to be used as an outdoor playground for children.

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

Environmental Health had been consulted and was content with the proposal, subject to an informative being placed on the decision relating to contaminated land.  DfI Roads had also been consulted and had offered no objection to the proposal.

The Members noted that it had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the BUAP, Draft BMAP, and the SPPS, Addendum to PPS 6 and PPS 8.

The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions.

            The Members were provided with the details of the application, whereby the Council was the landowner. The proposal was in association with the under-noted proposal for a mounted sign on a shipping container, under reference LA04/2021/0718/A.

The proposed site was situated within Whiterock Leisure Centre and was designated as lands reserved for landscape, amenity or recreation use in the BUAP and as existing open space within both versions dBMAP and an urban landscape wedge. 

The Members were advised that the proposals would complement the existing Leisure Centre and its recreational use and would comply with the relevant policy and area designations.

DFI Roads and Environmental Health had been consulted and had no objections and that no third party representations had been received.

The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions.

            The Members were provided with the details of the application, whereby the Council was the landowner. The proposal was in association with the above-noted proposal for an active travel hub, under reference LA04/2021/0696/F.

The proposed site was situated within Whiterock Leisure Centre and was designated as lands reserved for landscape, amenity or recreation use in the BUAP and as existing open space within both versions dBMAP and an urban landscape wedge. 

The Members noted that the proposed advertisement would respect the amenity of the surrounding area and would not prejudice public safety.  DFI Roads had been consulted and had no objections and no third party representations had been received.

The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions.

The Members were provided with the details of the Belfast City Council application for temporary planning permission, of two years, for the extension of the public pavement area.

The site was located within the Linen Conservation Area and, overall, the proposal was thought to preserve the character and appearance of the area and would not be detrimental to the setting of nearby listed buildings, the amenity of neighbouring properties or harmful to highway safety.

The application had been neighbour notified and had been advertised in the local press.  An objection had been received from the Department of Economy, raising concern over accessibility and loss of amenity.

The Historic Environment Division (HED), Environmental Health and the Conservation and Heritage officer had been consulted and offered no objections. Whilst there was an outstanding consultation response from DFI Roads, it had indicated there was no objection in principle, subject to detailed design drawings which were currently being reviewed by Roads.

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items report, where correspondence had been received from the Department for Communities, requesting further information on the footpath finishes and the management of street furniture.  The Members were advised that the full specification was detailed on the plans and that the Council would maintain and manage all street furniture.

A Member stated that she found it surprising that the Department for the Economy had objected to the proposal.

            The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions, subject to no objection from DFI Roads.

The Members were provided with the details of the Belfast City Council application for a temporary period of two years. It formed part of a citywide lighting strategy, undertaken by the Council, to create more welcoming, vibrant and safer places.

The site was located within Belfast City Centre Conservation Area and, overall, the proposal was thought to enhance the character and appearance of the area and would not be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties or harmful to highway safety.

The application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press and no comments were received. DFI Roads and Environmental Health had been consulted and had offered no objections to the proposal.

Whilst a consultation response from the Council’s Conservation and Heritage officer was outstanding, it was not considered that it presented any issue of principle, as the proposal was similar to other projector units that had already been approved in the

Conservation Area, under references LA04/2019/2385/F and LA04/2019/2386/F.

The proposal had been assessed against, and was considered to comply with, the SPPS, BUAP, Draft BMAP, PPS3 and PPS6.

            The Members of the Committee recommend that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions.

            The Members were advised of the details of the Belfast City Council application.

            The Members noted that the proposal involved the upgrade of an existing facility which would accord with one of the core planning objectives of the SPPS, to improve health and well-being.  The proposal complied with Policy OS7 of PPS8.

Environmental Health was satisfied that the predicted level of light would not be obtrusive. DAERA Natural Environment Division was satisfied the floodlights would not harm bat or badger activity in the vegetated borders.  Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) had initially advised that they had concerns that the floodlights might interfere with nearby overhead lines, however the applicant had been in discussions with NIE who had since confirmed that the proposal met the clearance distances. On that basis, no issue was raised.

No third party representations had been received.

The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application and to finalise the conditions.