Agenda and minutes

            Apologies for inability to attend were reported from Councillors Groogan and Hanvey.

            The minutes of the meetings of 15th and 24th June 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 July, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor McCullough declared an interest in Item 7f – Hillview, in that he had been involved in public and private meetings with residents in respect of the application, and he did not participate in the discussion or vote.

            Councillors Brooks and McMullan advised the Committee that, in relation to Item 7m – C. S. Lewis Square, they were Council appointments to the EastSide Partnership but clarified that, as they did not have a pecuniary interest, they remained in the meeting for the duration.

            Councillor O’Hara declared an interest inItem 7f – Hillview, in that, a number of years before he had been elected as a Councillor, he had supported PPR Project’s campaign for housing at the site in question but that had been before the current planning application had been lodged.  Upon seeking legal advice, the Divisional Solicitor clarified that, while it was up to the Member, she was content that, as long as he would consider the application with an open mind and without prejudice, he could participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

            The Committee noted that a site visit had taken place, on 10th August, to the following site:

·      LA04/2020/0847/F & LA04/2020/1208/DCA - Partial demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings to provide 16 apartments, communal bin store and landscaped communal garden at 25-29 University Road.

The Members recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to:

·        note the report and agree the 2020/21 balances;

·        agree to the year-end surplus of £5.4m being made available for re-allocation; and

·        retain the annual allocation of £500k for the summer diversionary festival programme with the purpose of running it later in the year.

            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 8th June and 9th August 2021.

The Members recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to note that:

·        NIHE had submitted a notice of application for a Vesting Order of Lands at Block 34g Corrib Avenue, under Local Government Act (NI) 1972 The Housing (NI) Order; and

·        DFI Roads was proposing to abandon 1000.476 sq metres of Adam Street, at its junction with Duncairn Gardens to Upper Canning Street Under Article 68 (1) of the Roads (NI) Order 1993.

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

·        (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2020/0847/F & LA04/2020/1208/DCA - Partial demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings to provide 16 apartments, communal bin store and landscaped communal garden at 25-29 University Road;

·        LA04/2019/0775/F - 18 dwellings to include revision of site layout of previous approval Z/2007/1401/F at sites 2-8 (7 dwellings) and additional 11 No. dwellings, including landscaping, access via Hampton Park and other associated site works on lands approximately 50m to the north of 35 Hampton Park and approximately 30m to the west of 60 Hampton Park, Galwally; and

·        LA04/2021/1595/F - Lands in front of Calvert House – Re-placing existing kiosk with upgraded kiosk which includes covered area at 23 and 17 Castle Place

            The Committee also agreed to undertake a pre-emptive site visit in respect of application LA04/2019/0775/F.

            Before presentation of the application commenced, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposals at first hand.

            The Committee 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.

            (Councillor McCullough, having declared an interest, left the meeting at this point in proceedings and did not participate in the vote)

            The Principal Planning officer outlined the key aspects of the application for the erection of 18 social houses comprising two different rows of housing.  She explained that the site had an area of 0.41hectare and was located within the development limits for Belfast in both the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 (BMAP). The application site was unzoned whiteland within the development limits in BUAP and was located within a proposed district centre designation (BT017/2) in draft BMAP 2004.

            The Members were advised of the main issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application, including:

·        the principle of the proposal at the location;

·        design, layout and impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        impact on residential amenity for existing and prospective residents

·        impact on built heritage;

·        access, parking, and transport;

·        infrastructure capacity; and

·        impact on human health.

The Principal Planning officer explained that District Centres were characterised by predominantly retail and commercial uses, acting as key service centres for surrounding communities. She reported that the proposal would result in a loss of space for that use and, therefore, the principle of the proposal was unacceptable on the basis that the site was within a zoned district centre and was also incompatible with adjacent land uses.

She outlined that the proposed residential use was incompatible with the adjacent land use which consisted of the retail units, service yards and the large areas of hardstanding for the car park. As such it was considered that housing at the location was unacceptable.

The Members were also advised that the layout and density proposed would result in overdevelopment of the site and that was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD 1 of PPS 7 Quality Residential Development.  The members were advised that it would result in unacceptable damage to the local character and would create an undesirable living environment for prospective residents by way of the poor layout, overlooking and inadequate amenity provision. She added that the scheme also failed to promote the safety and surveillance for prospective residents due to its location along an interface wall and within a retail park.

The Principal Planning officer outlined that 220 objections had been received in respect of the application, including objections from Mr. William Humphrey MLA, Alderman Kingston and Councillors Verner, Pankhurst and McCullough. The objections related to the use of the retail site for housing, impact on community issues, safety concerns, contrary to wider planning policy, inappropriate layout and impact on the character of the area, poor outlook onto a peace wall, inadequate amenity provision, design and layout create conflict with adjacent landuses, impact on residential amenity, overlooking, particularly at the north western corner of thesite, the potential of increased crime and compromised personal safety given the sensitivelocation of the site and inequality amongst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

(Councillor McCullough returned to the meeting at this point)

The Senior Planning officer outlined that permission was sought for the alteration and extension of an existing property, which contained two apartments, to provide four 1 bedroom apartments.   She explained that the proposal included internal reconfiguration of the rooms and the demolition and replacement of the rear return.

The Members were advised that the apartments would occupy three floors, with one apartment on the ground floor, two apartments on the first floor and one on the second floor proposed.  The rear return would be replaced, allowing bin storage, cycle parking and private amenity space to be provided to the rear of the apartments and increasing the separation distance with its neighbour to the south.

The Members were advised that the main issues which had been considered during the assessment included the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the area (including the draft Area of Townscape Character), residential amenity, access, parking and road safety and available infrastructure.

The application had been neighbour notified and was advertised in the local press. The Senior Planning officer explained that a total of 19 letters of objection had been received. The objections raised a number of concerns, including the impact on the Area of Townscape Character, design, impact on amenity, parking provision, accuracy of the parking survey and the structural impact on the adjoining property.

The Members were advised that Environmental Health had been consulted and it was content with the proposal, subject to an informative being attached to the decision.  NI Water had been consulted and had offered no objection.  DfI Roads had also been consulted and had offered no objection, subject to condition.

            The Senior Planning officer detailed that the proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the BUAP, Draft BMAP, PPS3, PPS7, PPS7 Addendum, the SPPS and Creating Places.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor McAllister to the meeting who wished to speak in objection to the proposal.  She advised the Members that:

·        part of the original building would be destroyed, which was a direct contradiction to the Council’s commitment to preserve heritage within the Belfast Agenda and the forthcoming Local Development Plan;

·        under PPS 6 section 7.8, it was recommended that, in Areas of Townscape Character (ATCs), that consultation should be undertaken with the Conservation officer.  That consultation had not taken place, and the Conservation officer had confirmed that he had been consulted on similar changes to other applications for new apartments in that area;

·        application LA04/2018/2844/F confirmed that “planning authorities must deliver increased housing density without town cramming”, however, the Case officer advised that the increased units in the current application, with a smaller square footage, should be approved;

·        many of the objections and recommendations within application LA04/2018/2844/F were relevant, such as opposition to Policy HOU 5 – a lack of adequate facilities and inferior dwellings – the even smaller square footage of the current application made that even more stark;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10c

            The Senior Planning officer outlined the principal aspects of the application to the Members.  She explained that permission was being sought for a site compound for a temporary period of three years.

            The key issues which had been considered in the assessment of the application included the principle of development/loss of open space, impact on a Conservation Area, impact on trees, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on natural heritage, traffic, parking and a Section 76 Planning Agreement.

She outlined that the site was designated as whiteland in the BUAP and within both versions of draft BMAP as existing open space and a local landscape policy area (LLPA). The Members were advised that the site formed part of sub area F of the Malone Conservation Area.

She drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items pack, whereby there was an error in Condition 1 in the Development Management Officer Report, which should have read  “The permission hereby granted shall be for a limited period of 3 years only from the date of the decision notice.”

The Members were advised that the proposed change of use would result in the temporary loss of open space and would temporarily adversely impact the character and appearance of the Malone Conservation Area and the draft LLPA. They were asked to note that the Council’s Conservation Officer had objected to the proposal. However, officers considered that the temporary impacts on the conservation area and loss of open space had to be balanced against the substantial community and public benefits that would derive from an extended hospital which would be of a greater benefit to the wider community. As such it was considered that the presumption against the development could be relaxed in that instance, having regard to Section 104 of the Planning Act, Policy BH12 of PPS6, Policy OS1 of PPS8 and the SPPS.

The Senior Planning officer outlined that the applicant had agreed to enter into a Section 76 Agreement to ensure that the land was restored to its former condition on completion of the works.

She reported that nine objections had been received in respect of the proposal, citing concern with the following:

·        increased traffic congestion at Cranmore Park and busy road junction and associated road safety concerns regarding nearby schools;

·        location of the Cranmore site entrance, should be relocated to the Malone Road;

·        impact on the surrounding character with inappropriate development;

·        impact on wildlife - Badgers within the site;

·        removal of trees;

·        noise and disturbance associated with the proposed use;

·        concern regarding dates of the traffic survey, which had beenundertaken during Covid restrictions.

The Senior Planning officer advised that the issues had been addressed within the Case officer’s report. 

The Members were advised that the Council’s Trees and Landscaping Team, Environmental Health, DfI Roads Service and DAERA (Natural Environment Division) had all been consulted and had no objections, subject to conditions.

She outlined that supporting statements had been provided by the applicant to demonstrate why the proposal should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10d

            The Senior Planning officer presented the application to the Members.  She advised that the 14 social housing units were proposed to be built in three rows.

The Members were advised that the site had an area of 0.15 hectare and was located within the development limits for Belfast in both the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 (BMAP). The site was unzoned in BUAP 2001. The northern half of the site was unzoned in draft BMAP 2004 while the southern part of the site was zoned as a shopping/commercial area, along an arterial route.

She detailed the main issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application, which included the principle of the proposal at the location, the design, layout and impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on amenity, access, parking and transport, infrastructure capacity and impact on human health.

            The Members were advised that the site had a history of planning approvals for housing and that the development plan did not preclude housing at that location.

            The Senior Planning officer explained that the proposal followed the general pattern of development in the area. The design and layout would not create conflict and was in keeping with the local character and would not impact on environmental quality or residential amenity in accordance with PPS 7.

In terms of prospective residents, the Members were advised that each unit had an adequate outlook to the public street, and that all units were proposed to be built to a size not less than those set out Policy LC1.  It was also considered that the design, layout and separation distances proposed were acceptable and would not significantly impact on existing residential amenity by way of overlooking, dominance, loss of light or overshadowing.

The Members were advised that objections had been received from the Lower Oldpark Community Association. They had raised a number of concerns, including: parking and traffic; the proposal was at odds with the Development Plan zoning for a Commercial/Shopping area; the proposal should contain an element of retail/commercial uses; and the proposal did not respect the built context/local character of the area.  The Senior Planning officer explained that the issues had been addressed in the Case officer’s report.

In respect of the impact on parking and traffic, DfI Roads was content with the parking spaces and access provided.  She added that Rivers Agency, NI Water and Environmental Health had offered no objections.

The Members were advised that DFI Roads had offered no fundamental objections to the proposal other than the detailing of the Travel Plan offered by the applicant. DFI Roads had commented that the submitted Travel Plan should be conditioned for three years as opposed to one year. The agent had requested that the Planning officers would consider that one year was appropriate, given financial constraints.  The Travel Plan would include one Translink Travel Card per dwelling, the provision of one membership for the Belfast Bike Scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10e

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

            She outlined the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposed development, including:

·        the principle of re-development and use;

·        scale, design, massing and layout;

·        impact on the Surrounding Character, Area of Townscape Character;

·        impact on neighbouring amenity;

·        provision of internal and outdoor amenity;

·        parking and traffic issues; and

·        water and sewage

            The Members were advised that eight letters of objection had been received in response to the initial and amended schemes. Seven were from two individuals and the other was from Councillor T. Kelly, who had supported the comments from one of the objectors.  Councillor McKeown had also made representation and requested that the application was brought before the Committee for the reasons set out in the objection letters. The Principal Planning officer explained that it was considered that some of the initial issues of concern had been resolved following amendments to the scheme.

The objections referenced inadequate parking provision, overlooking/dominance of neighbouring properties, noise/smell from balconies resulting from talking/smoking, food waste, density, need/economic impact of an additional retail unit, and that the design was contrary to Area of Townscape Character.

The Case officer’s response to the points raised were dealt with in report.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the proposal was within the Urban Area and the development limits of Belfast. The proposed uses of retail on the ground floor with residential above was compatible on the site and therefore the principle was acceptable providing the proposal was compliant with all relevant polices and

material considerations.

She advised that the proposed design, scale, height, mass and appearance was, on balance, acceptable within the surrounding context. The proposed residential units were of a size and layout which were acceptable with all having access to amenity provision.  She highlighted that a reduced standard of amenity was considered acceptable as the site sat in a highly accessible location close to local amenities including parks and a contribution would be made towards local park amenities.

The Members were advised that the proposal had been amended during the processing both to ensure that it would not result in an unacceptable impact in terms of dominance and overlooking on neighbouring terraces and to ensure that the design would sit more comfortably both on the Lisburn Road and the residential street.

She reported that DFI Roads, Environmental Health, the Urban Design Officer, NI Water and Rivers Agency had been consulted in respect of the application and had offered no objection to the proposal.

The Members were advised that, as the development proposed fell short in terms of private and shared amenity, the developer had agreed to contribute to local public amenity to offset the reduction.

The Chairperson welcomed Ms. C. Flanagan and Ms. L. Dawson, objectors, to the meeting.  Together they advised the Committee Members that:

·        they were concerned that the recent amendment to the plans included double doors which opened onto the balconies/terraces;

·        there was no precedent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10f

            The Senior Planning officer presented the Members with the principal aspects of the application.

            The key issues which had been considered by officers in the assessment of the application were:

·        the principle of development;

·        impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        impact upon the setting of nearby listed building;

·        residential amenity;

·        provision of parking and access; and

·        water infrastructure, drainage and flooding.

            The Members were advised that the site was located adjacent to a mixture of commercial, public and residential land uses and was within the development limits identified under the existing Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) and draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. In dBMAP (both versions) it was located adjacent to an arterial route and within a Commercial Node/Area of Parking Restraint.  The site currently comprised vacant land with previous buildings demolished.

The Senior Planning officer reported that there was a planning history on the site which informed consideration of the current proposal.  Application LA4/2015/1160/F permitted 18 apartments on lands at 165-169 Holywood Road, granted in June 2018, and application LA04/2017/1558/F permitted 4 apartments on lands at 159-163 Holywood Road, granted in May 2017. The Members were reminded that both approvals were extant and provided a legitimate fallback position.

She explained that the current application combined both sites and proposed to build and manage it as a single development.  She pointed out that the proposal was amended and reduced during the processing of the application and had largely been informed by the extant approvals on the site, presenting four stories with a fifth set back on the corner of the Holywood Road and Dundela Crescent, stepping down to four stories where it adjoined its neighbouring building on the Holywood Road.

The Members were advised that no parking was proposed but that the site was located adjacent to an arterial route which was well served by public transport and was within an area of parking restraint in a commercial node.   The Senior Planning officer reported that integral cycle parking was provided.  She explained that the applicant had submitted a Residential Framework Travel Plan and Service Management Plan.

The Senior Planning officer pointed out that DfI Roads had objected to the development, requesting that further sustainable travel measures be provided. She highlighted, however, that given the fallback position it was considered unreasonable to insist on additional measures, noting that DfI Roads sought no such measures for the previous two permissions, which could be implemented.

A Grade B2 listed building at Nos. 2 to 4 Belmont Road, occupied by the UUP Headquarter Offices, sat on the opposite side of the Belmont Road from the site. The Members were advised that HED had stated that the proposal, as presented, would have an adverse impact on the listed building and its setting, however, it deferred to the Council in relation to the material consideration afforded to previously approved applications.  The Senior Planning explained that officers felt that significant weight should be given to the previous approvals and were satisfied,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10g

The Members were advised that the application was being considered by the Committee as the applicant was a member of staff as outlined in the Scheme of Delegation. 

The proposal comprised a single and two storey rear extension with a rear car parking and turning area.

The site was whiteland within the BUAP and was within the proposed Ravenhill Park Area of Townscape Character (ATC) as designated within both versions of dBMAP.

The extension was considered sympathetic to the existing dwelling and surrounding area including the proposed ATC and would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.  No 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 for the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions.

The Members were advised that full planning permission was sought for the retention of an existing in-situ storage container to be used as a community facility with domestic kitchen.  They were advised that the Council was the landowner.

The Planning officer explained that Environmental Health had confirmed that it was satisfied that the proposal would not have a negative impact on amenity.

No representations had been received and the proposal was considered to comply with planning policy including PPS8 and the SPPS. The officer outlined that it would improve facilities for the local community and would complement the existing sports facility.

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 for the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions.

The Members were advised that the Council was the landowner of the application and were advised that a renewal of planning approval LA04/2019/2412/F was being sought, for a temporary timber structure at CS Lewis Square prior to its expiry on 31st July, 2021.

            The Members were advised that the proposal included an addition to the visitor attraction at the Hub and offered shelter to users of C.S Lewis Square. It would not detract from the public space or the surrounding area, including the Connswater Greenway.  Rivers Agency had been consulted in relation to the proposal and had no objections to its renewal.

The application had been neighbour notified and was advertised in the local press, with no representations having been submitted.

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 for the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions.