Agenda and minutes

            An apology for inability to attend was reported for Councillor Groogan.

            The minutes of the meeting of 12th November, 2024 were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council, at its meeting on 2nd December, 2024, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Councillor Carson) declared an interest in relation to item 9g, LA04/2023/2557/F - 260 no. dwellings, children's play area and other ancillary and associated works - Lands East of Meadowhill, North of Glencolin Court, North and East of Glencolin Rise, East of Glencolin Grove, North and West of Glen Road Rise, and North of Glen Road Grove, in that he had previously engaged with the applicant.

            Councillor T. Brooks declared an interest in relation to item 9a, LA04/2020/0568/F and LA04/2020/0569/LBC - Demolition of building and structures at rear, refurbishment and alteration of frontage building and erection of 9 storey extension to rear to form hotel (74 bedrooms) with associated restaurant, bar and ancillary facilities and works (amended description). Demolition of building and structures at rear, part demolition to internal features, refurbishment and extension to listed building (amended description). - 21 Queen Street, in that in that her husband was associated with the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society.

            Councillor Whyte declared an interest in relation to item 9g, LA04/2023/2557/F - 260 no. dwellings, children's play area and other ancillary and associated works - Lands East of Meadowhill, North of Glencolin Court, North and East of Glencolin Rise, East of Glencolin Grove, North and West of Glen Road Rise, and North of Glen Road Grove, in that the applicant was a client of the company he was employed by.

            The Committee noted that the following items had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·        Draft Planning Committee Operating Protocol; and

·        LA04/2024/1623/F - Change of use from 4 bed dwelling (C1) to 5 bed House of Multiple Occupancy (Sui Generis) - 49 Woodcot Avenue.

            The Committee noted the site visits.

            The Committee noted the notifications regarding accessible parking bays at the following locations:

·        Provision at 79 Cavendish Street; and

·        Provision at Cuba Walk, adjacent to Scotch Row.

            The Committee noted the notifications regarding accessible parking bays at the following locations:

·        Provision at 79 Cavendish Street; and

·        Provision at Cuba Walk, adjacent to Scotch Row.

            The Committee noted the appeals decisions.

            The Committee noted the planning decisions issued in November, 2024.

            The Committee noted the list of live applications for major development.

            The Committee noted the list of Committee decisions which had not yet been issued.

            The Committee noted and supported the proposed listing of:

·        14 Carolan Road, Belfast, BT7 3HE;

·        86 Lisburn Rd, Belfast, BT9 6AF;

·        88 Lisburn Rd Belfast BT9 6AF; and

·        50 Windsor Avenue, Belfast, BT9 7DX.

            The Committee agreed to delegate to the Director of Planning and Building Control those Local planning applications to which NI Water had objected.

            The Planning Manager explained that the Committee had approved the applications at its meeting in November, however, the description of the application for full planning permission required amendment, to reference demolition.

            He explained that the applications had been approved by the Committee, at its meeting in February, and that, since the decisions had been issued, a Pre-Action Protocol letter had been received from the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAH) in June, 2024.

            He stated that officers had accepted that, on balance, the decisions should be quashed on the basis that it should have been clearer in the original Committee report that the building and structures proposed to be demolished at the rear were part of the Listed Building and how relevant planning policy that related to demolition of Listed Buildings had been applied.

            He stated that the decisions had subsequently been quashed by the Court and the addendum report set out an updated assessment of the demolition of the Listed structures at the rear, having regard to the relevant planning policies and included updated advice from the Historic Environment Division (HED). 

            He reported that UAH had submitted a late objection that cited concern with regard to re-consultation and conflict with Policies BH1, BH2, DES1 and DES3, which implied that there were no exceptional reasons why the Listed Building could not be retained in its original or reasonably modified form.

            The Planning Manager presented the amended description and asked the Committee to confirm its previous decisions.

            The Committee agreed to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application in order that a site visit could be undertaken.

(The Committee agreed to consider the following two items together.)

            The Planning Manager summarised the applications and explained that they had been approved by the Committee in March, 2022 and re-approved in June, 2023, following the adoption of the Belfast Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy.

            He stated that the applications were being reported back to the Committee as the Section 76 planning agreement remained outstanding after five years as there had been issues with regard to ownership of the land and that there had been an adjustment to the parking layout for the 12 apartments, reducing the number of spaces from 11 to 10.

            He explained that the applications could not remain undetermined indefinitely as the Council must be mindful of its statutory performance targets and he recommended that, should the Section 76 planning agreement not be completed by the end of January, 2025, the applications would be reported back to the Committee at its meeting in February for redetermination.

            The Committee agreed to grant planning permission in respect of both applications, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Committee noted that, should the Section 76 planning agreement not be completed by the end of January, 2025, the application would be brought back to the Committee for redetermination.

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and presented a site location plan, elevation imaging and floor plans.

            She explained that, since the Committee’s meeting in November, when the application was deferred in order that Members could undertake a site visit, the PAC had issued a decision to allow an appeal for an HMO.  She reported that the main issues in the appeal related to whether the development proposal would unacceptably affect residential amenity and whether sufficient on-street car parking was available. 

            She stated that the Commissioner had considered that there was sufficient parking available in the vicinity of the site and that there was no evidence to support the view that an additional HMO would adversely impact residential amenity. 

            She explained that the reasons for refusal were therefore not sustained and the appeal succeeded.  She added that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            A number of Members raised concerns with regard to a lack of amenity space, which one Member explained that it was clearly evident from the Committee site visit.

            At the request of a Member, the Director of Planning and Building Control agreed to arrange a Committee Workshop to discuss a review of supplementary planning guidance with regard to HMOs.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Ferguson;

            Seconded by Alderman Lawlor; and

      Resolved – “That the Committee refuse the application due to a lack of amenity space and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the reasons for refusal.”

(The Chairperson (Councillor Carson) and Councillor Whyte left the meeting

whilst the following item was under consideration, Deputy Chairperson

(Councillor T. Brooks) in the Chair.)

            The Planning Manager explained that the application had been considered and approved by the Committee at its meeting in June, 2024, and that part of the recommendation had been based on the implementation of a Travel Plan, secured via a clause within the final Section 76 planning agreement and dealing with the final consultation responses from DfI Roads and DfI Rivers, provided that they were not substantive.

            He reported that, since the application was approved, subject to conditions, viability issues had been raised by the applicant in relation to the delivery of the proposed pedestrian crossing point on the Glen Road and the timing of its delivery.  He stated that the applicant had requested that the Council consider reducing the travel card subsidy from three years to one year in order to enable the provision of the pedestrian crossing point prior to occupation of the first dwelling.

            He informed the Committee that the viability appraisal had been submitted by the applicant and reviewed by officers, and that it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Committee agreed to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement and to deal with any outstanding issues raised by DfI Roads, and any other matters that arise, including reviewing the applicant’s viability appraisal and, if appropriate, amend the “green travel measures” offer to enable the construction and provision of the pedestrian crossing prior to occupation of the development.

(The Chairperson (Councillor Carson) in the Chair.)

            The Planning Manager explained that a previous application at the site for 270no. apartments had been refused by the Committee in 2020 on the grounds of adverse impact on the setting of Listed Buildings, inappropriate height, scale and massing, design out of character with the area and over-dominant impact on neighbouring housing, loss of outlook, amenity and unacceptable harm to living conditions.  He added that a subsequent appeal to the PAC had been dismissed.

            He reported that the application proposed the construction of 104no. residential units, to include 84no. social rented units (approximately 80%), that would comprise a mix of general social housing and Category 1, over 55s accommodation.

            He stated that the proposed development would comprise of two detached blocks, ranging in height from five storeys along the Ormeau Road elevation that would step down to three stories to the rear. 

            He outlined the following key issues for consideration of the application:

·        Principle of housing in this location;

·        Housing density;

·        Affordable housing;

·        Housing mix;

·        Adaptable and accessible accommodation;

·        Design and placemaking;

·        Impact on heritage assets;

·        Residential quality and impact on amenity;

·        Community cohesion and good relations;

·        Security and design;

·        Open space;

·        Space Standards;

·        Access and transport;

·        Health impacts;

·        Environmental protection and climate change;

·        Flood risk and drainage;

·        Waste-water infrastructure;

·        Waste management;

·        Natural heritage;

·        Employability and skills;

·        Section 76 planning agreement;

·        Pre-application Community Consultation; and

·        Matters raised in representations.

            He explained that the site was a suitable and highly sustainable location for housing and that the proposal would make effective use of previously developed land and would support city centre living.

            He reported that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) was supportive of the on-site social housing proposals and that it had submitted a further response to the Council that reiterated its position on the proposal, stating that it fully supported a mixed-tenure scheme of 84 social homes, that there was a higher than average social housing stock in the area that would increase further with other schemes, and that there was a higher than average private rent and a below average owner occupation.  He stated that the NIHE had asserted that consideration should be given to intermediate tenures, private for sale or private for rent homes and that waiting lists had applicants with different circumstances, needs and levels of points that required a wider variety of housing needs, therefore, it didn’t anticipate difficulty in achieving fully mixed tenures for schemes of the scale proposed.

            The Planning Manager informed the Committee that no objections from statutory or non-statutory consultees had been received and that there had been 52 representations received, that included one petition of objection submitted from the Donegal Pass Residents Association that raised concerns with regard to the planning process, form of housing, impact on amenity, height, density, design and impact on services and infrastructure.  He informed the Committee that all concerns had been addressed within the report and summarised those issues that had been raised.

            He stated that it was recommended that planning permission be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

            The Planning Manager outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of PBMSA in this location;

·        Design, Placemaking, and impact on Conservation Area;

·        Impact on heritage assets;

·        Impact on Conservation Area;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Climate change;

·        Open space;

·        Access and transport;

·        Health impacts;

·        Environmental protection;

·        Flood risk and drainage;

·        Waste-water infrastructure;

·        Natural heritage;

·        Waste management;

·        Section 76 planning agreement; and

·        Pre-Application Community Consultation.

            He stated that the site was a highly sustainable location within the city centre and close to transport links such as Grand Central Station and other public transport services.

            He informed the Committee that a late objection had been received from the owner of 11 Fountain Street, where Voodoo Bar was located, citing concerns with regard to its operation adjacent to future residents and suggested noise mitigation measures be considered.  The Planning Manager explained that a noise impact assessment had been submitted and addressed by Environmental Health and that conditions would ensure that noise levels for prospective residents would be at acceptable levels with considerations to Voodoo Bar.

            The Planning Manager stated that it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement, and resolve the outstanding consultation from DAERA NIEA in relation to the ecology report

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and summarised the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of development;

·        Demolition / removal of structures;

·        Design, character and appearance;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Flood risk and drainage;

·        Health impacts;

·        Access, movement and parking;

·        Natural heritage / biodiversity;

·        Noise, odour, and other environmental impacts;

·        Climate change, trees, and landscaping;

·        Developer contributions and employability and skills;

·        Open space; and

·        Pre-community consultation.

            She reported that no statutory consultees had raised any objections and no third-party representations had been received.

            She stated that it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Senior Planning Officer summarised the application and explained that the site was a suitable location for housing, being within a generally residential area and would make effective use of previously developed land.

            He stated that the height, scale and massing of the proposed buildings were in keeping with the surrounding area and that the proposal would provide dedicated in-curtilage and off-street parking in a highly sustainable location with access to public transport.

            He reported that the NIHE was supportive of the social housing proposals and that statutory and non-statutory consultees, in general, supported the proposal and that no third-party representations had been received.

            He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission would be granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. P. Stinson and Ms. D. Lyle to the meeting, speaking on behalf of the applicant.

            Ms. Lyle stated that the need for homes had been clearly communicated by those who had attended the pre-application community consultation event and that, overall, there had been clear support for the development which had been maintained throughout the application process with no objections having been made.

            She explained that discussions with officers had led to an increase in the overall public amenity space in the proposal and would ensure better integration between the spaces and residents.

            She stated that the application was supported by a Section 76 planning agreement that would secure the delivery of social housing, green travel measures and the verifications of the proactive flood lighting upgrade.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement, and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Senior Planning Officer outlined the proposal to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues:

·        Principle of development;

·        Visual impact of the proposed redevelopment;

·        Impact on residential amenity;

·        Impact on character of the area;

·        Impact on transport infrastructure and road safety;

·        Flood risk / drainage;

·        Health impacts;

·        Environmental impact;

·        Climate change; and

·        Community infrastructure.

            He explained that the site was located within lands reserved for landscape, amenity or recreation use within the Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) and that no objections had been received from any statutory or non-statutory consultees.

            He reported that a petition had been received which objected to the proposal based on the impact of increased traffic and congestion and stated that all concerns had been addressed within the report.

            He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission was granted, subject to conditions.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

`The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained the following key considerations:

·        Demolition of dwelling was acceptable in principle- made no material contribution to Conservation Area and Demolition Justification Statement considered in regards to ENV 2;

·        Proposed height, scale, massing and design was considered contextually appropriate and would enhance the Conservation Area;

·        Conservation Advice had no objection to demolition but raised concerns in relation to design of proposed replacement. The response had been considered;

·        It was considered that there were no adverse or unacceptable impacts to neighbouring amenity; and

·        Two objections had been submitted and were considered.

            He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            He pointed out that, the Committee report erroneously indicated that a Section 76 planning agreement had been required and confirmed that there was no requirement within the application.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application in order that a site visit could be undertaken.

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application to the Committee and stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material consideration, it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and stated that it was recommended that the application would be approved, subject to conditions.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Committee considered the application and granted planning permission, subject to conditions, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with the outstanding consultations and any new issues that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control provided the Committee with an update on the Quarter 2 financial position for the Planning Committee that included a summary of the financial indicators and an executive summary.

            The Committee noted the report and the associated financial reporting pack.