Agenda and minutes

            Apologies were reported on behalf of Alderman McGimpsey and Councillor Mullan.

            The minutes of the meeting of 17th 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.

            In respect of item 8.a) LA04/2015/0160/F, that is, an application for a variation of condition 4 (retail warehousing shall only be used for the sale of bulky goods) of planning permission Z/1990/0127 (extension to Connswater Centre to include retail warehousing, business park, housing and car parking) to permit the sale of convenience goods and all types of comparison goods in Units 2 and 4 Connswater Retail Park, Councillor Armitage indicated that he had attended a meeting with objectors to the application.

            Regarding item 8.e), LA04/2015/0739/F - Removal of condition 5 of Z/2014/1279/F - relating to the signalised junction - Lands at the former Dargan Road landfill site to the north of Dargan Road, Councillor Hutchinson declared an interest, in so far as he had participated in the promotion of the associated project and was a Member of the North Foreshore Working Group.

            Regarding item 8.h) LA04/2015/0233/F - Change of use from existing furniture store to 9 apartments with elevational changes at 24 - 40 Upper Newtownards Road, Councillor McDonough-Brown declared an interest in that he had attended a meeting with the applicant.

            With the permission of the Chairperson, the Director tabled the above-mentioned report regarding the Quarter 4 financial position for the Planning and Licensing Committees which included a summary of the financial indicators, detailed explanations and the executive summary. He highlighted that the financial position for Quarter 4 was a net surplus of £369k.

                                                                                                                                    Noted.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Housing Executive, which related to the extinguishment of a Public Rights of Way at Cairns Street.

            The Committee 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 Committee noted a list of decisions which had been taken under delegated authority by the Director of Planning and Place between 10th May and 7th June.

            The Director provided an overview of the Department’s performance to date.

Noted.

            The Committee were advised that notification had been received from the Department of Infrastructure regarding an application for the construction of a new multi-purpose facility at D3 for the berthing of cruise ships, and for lay-by and transient storage of project cargo, break bulk and dry bulk during cruise ship off-season at Land at D3, adjacent to The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Reserve, Airport Road West.

            It was reported that the Council had been notified of the above planning application as it was being dealt with by the Department for Infrastructure as a result of it being classified as ‘Regionally Significant’ under Section 26 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.

            After discussion, the Committee noted the application and requested that the following comments be submitted to the Department for Infrastructure in response to their notification:

·        highlight the importance of the RSPB reserve in this vicinity; and

·        query the intended strategy in choosing this particular site and how this relates to other activities such as access to city centre.

            The Committee considered the following report regarding the Supplementary Planning Guidance – Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation (PBMSA) in Belfast provides additional advice and guidance specific to PBMSA in Belfast and builds upon the Planning and Place Advice Note endorsed in October 2015 and the Best Practice Guide agreed in December 2015.

1.2       This report provides an update to Members on the public consultation process undertaken on the draft SPG and the responses received.  It also outlines a number of amendments made to the final SPG as a result of the consultation and presents the final SPG for notation.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The committee is asked to:

·        Note the comments received in response to the consultation exercise and the proposed amendments to the final SPG as a result;

·        Note the Consultation Report; and

·        Note the final SPG document.

3.0       Main report

            Key Issues

3.1       The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation (PBMSA) in Belfast is the third document produced to provide the Council with appropriate tools to deal with the recent influx of planning applications for PBMSA in the City Centre.  It builds on the ‘Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation in Belfast – Planning and Place Advice Note’ (approved in October 2015) and the ‘Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation in Belfast – Planning and Place Best Practice Guide’ (approved in December 2015).   

3.2       The SPG provides additional advice and guidance for use by developers, the public and by planning officers in the assessment of planning applications for PBMSA developments.  It represents non-statutory planning guidance which supports and clarifies existing policies, most notably the HMO Subject Plan for Belfast, the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) and PPS7 Quality Residential Environments.

3.3       It is structured around the same criteria contained within the internal Planning and Place Advice Note, setting out supplementary guidance in relation to six planning issues, including:

·        Location: The development should be at a location which is easily accessible to university/college campuses by sustainable transport modes. 

·        Quality Design: The layout, design and facilities provided within a development should be of high standards.

·        Scale and Impact: The development should be designed in a way that does not conflict with adjacent properties or the general amenity of the surrounding area. 

·        Management: The development has appropriate management in place to create a positive and safe living environment for students whilst minimising any potential negative impacts from occupants. 

·        Need: The development meets an identified need for the type of accommodation proposed.  This should help secure a supply of accommodation in response to evidence of need.

·        Planning Agreements: Planning Agreements, and related developer contributions, may be required in relation to PBMSA where what is secured cannot be adequately addressed by the imposition of conditions alone. 

3.5      Where relevant to a particular development proposal, the SPG will be taken into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications, with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the associated documents which had been published on the Council’s website:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       In June 2015 Committee agreed to authorise the undertaking of a public consultation exercise in order to ascertain the level of support for Article 4 Directions to be issued within Adelaide Park and Malone Park Conservation Areas.  The directions will enable the Council to restrict permitted development rights associated with householder development that can currently be undertaken without the need for planning permission.

            It was agreed that, should sufficient support be demonstrated for the proposal Article 4 Directions would be issued

            The purpose of this paper is to update members of the outcome of the public consultation which demonstrates that a majority of residents support Article 4 Directions within Adelaide Park and Malone Park Conservation Areas.  

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is requested to:

·        Approve Serving Notice of Article 4 Directions in Adelaide Park and Malone Park Conservation Areas restricting some of the householder permitted development rights

3.0       Main report

3.1       Conservation Areas are designated Under Article 104 of the Planning (NI) Act 2011, as ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest....the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’.  It is therefore a statutory requirement for the Council to take action to ensure that the character of Conservation Areas is protected.

3.2       Insensitive alterations to buildings within Conservation Areas, even if they appear relatively minor, can individually and cumulatively, have a detrimental impact on the character of both the host building and wider area. 

3.3       Under the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (NI) 2015, many such changes would be permitted development.  However under Article 4 of the same Order the Council  enables the Council to bring such changes under planning control.  Use of such Directions would bring this practice into use here for the first time; it is widely used in other jurisdictions. 

3.4       An Article 4 Direction will represent a minor extension over existing planning control - bringing replacement of existing elements under planning control.  Historic elements express the craftsmanship of the era, and possess narrative and aesthetic qualities.  They are important individually and collectively to the character of these Conservation Areas.  They are important to architectural unity – i.e. inherent to the design / style of properties. 

3.5       There are no fees associated with applications arising from Article 4 Directions.  Where details are required in support of applications drawings by suppliers and companies carrying out the proposed works such as replacement window frames / doors could suffice, when of sufficient detail, thereby negating the potential cost associated with detailed supporting information. 

3.6       A survey was carried out to ascertain the level of support for Article 4 Directions.  This lasted 4 weeks and ended on 21 March 2016. The survey was delivered to all residents who live in the Malone Park and Adelaide Park. Officers also engaged with local residents at a meeting at Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the associated documents which had been published on the Council’s website:

“1.0  Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

         Following the transfer of the Planning function to the council and the appointment of the Director of Planning and Place, the Building Control Service has moved under his control. In order to set out the key actions for both services and the directorate as a whole, an exercise was undertaken to merge the two draft service business plans into a single plan which identifies the key actions for 2016-2017.

2.0    Recommendations

         Members of the committee are asked to consider and approve the Planning and Place business plan for 2016/17 and the key actions identified.

3.0    Main report

         Key Issues

         The Planning and Place business plan has been based around the ‘plan on a page’ representation of the Belfast Agenda.  It sets out a range of tasks and improvement activities identified by both the Planning and the Building Control Services as being important both for the provision of efficient and effective customer focused services and to contribute to other relevant corporate objectives as expressed in the evolving ‘plan on a page’ and in the corporate plan.    

         While many actions are specific to either Service, there are some obvious common areas of work between the two Services, and so a number of joint actions have been highlighted to be taken forward to ensure a joined up and efficient approach is achieved.

         Key actions that are to be prioritised in 2016-17 have been gathered into one summary sheet. 

         Financial & Resource Implications

         The Business plan has been developed in the context of the resources available to the both the Building Control and Planning Services.

         Equality or Good Relations Implications

         There are no equality or good relation implications.”

            The Committee approved the Planning and Place business plan for 2016/2017 and the key actions identified as outlined in the report (copy available on the Council’s website).

            The information contained in the following reports are restricted in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 6 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 17th May, it was reported that the Statement of Community Involvement and Plan Timetable had been approved by the Department for Infrastructure, which was within Stage 1 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) process, and signalled that the development plan process could officially commence.

            It was explained that a series of workshops and Party Briefings had taken place which provided a comprehensive evidence base to inform Members of the key findings which had emerged from the themes of the LDP, and that Members had been asked to provide feedback for the Preferred Options Paper. 

            A draft of the Local Development Plan - Engagement and Communication Strategy was outlined to the Committee. It was reported that the document would continue to be developed over the coming months in order to reflect best practice and link with the Belfast Agenda, the detail of which would be finalised in April/May 2017, signalling the end of Stage 1 and the transition to the Plan Strategy development phase. It was also highlighted that stakeholder engagement had commenced and would continue to be developed throughout the stages.

            The Committee was apprised of the various planned engagements and communication activity of the LDP process and the proposed plan of work that would be undertaken, which included a 12 week consultation on the Preferred Options Paper. 

            The Committee noted the contents of the report, in particular:

·        the approval of the Statement of Community Involvement and Plan Timetable ; and

·        the continued external engagement with key statutory stakeholders, wider consultees and the community.

            The Committee also endorsed the approach to engagement and communications regarding the Local Development Plan as outlined in the report.

(Councillor McDonough-Brown had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            (Councillor Boyle, who was not a member of the Committee but was speaking, declared an interest in relation to this item, insofar as he worked in the housing rental business.)

            The Committee considered an application for the part retrospective consent for alterations, refurbishment and change of use to 5 apartments, refurbishment of existing garage, shared parking provision and landscaping to front of 21 and 22 College Gardens.

            The Committee received representations from Mr. M. Rafferty and Ms. M. Bowers, on behalf of residents of College Gardens. Mr. Rafferty outlined a range of objections to the proposal which related to the planning history, size, layout and parking, together with its potential impact on the surrounding residential houses. In addition, Councillor Boyle explained his objections to the recommendation. He suggested that, as renovations had taken place to the neighbouring properties based on the previous planning approval for four dwelling houses, the protection of The Houses in Multiple Occupation Subject Plan had failed in respect of the proposed recommendation for the current application.

            During discussion, the Director advised that there was an error, under paragraph 9.16 - Conclusion, in the report which should read: ‘Having regard to the policy context above, the proposal is considered acceptable, and planning permission is recommended for approval.’

            The Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the proposed layout of the development, together with its potential impact on the surrounding residential area, agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The Committee also agreed that a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee regarding Car Parking provision and guidance.

(Councillor Armitage, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for the variation of condition 4 (retail warehousing shall only be used for the sale of bulky goods) of planning permission Z/1990/0127 (extension to Connswater Centre to include retail warehousing, business park, housing, car parking) to permit the sale of convenience goods and all types of comparison goods in Units 2 and 4 Connswater Retail Park.

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of the report and advised that the application had previously been listed for the Planning Committee meeting on 17th May, 2016 and at the request of the applicant the application had been withdrawn from the agenda to allow further consideration of a late submission by Michael Burroughs Associates and Stewart Beattie QC in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. She advised that legal advice had also been provided by the Town Solicitor as outlined in the report (copy available on the Council’s website).

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Brown. He outlined a range of objections to the proposed recommendation for approval which related to the potential for exposing the Council to liability and risk of a judicial review, the conditions outlined in the report being open to appeal and the decision being contrary to planning policy.

            Councillor Armitage outlined his support of the recommendation that the application be approved. 

            Mr. D. Monaghan, representing Michael Burroughs Associates, who acted on behalf of the applicants, Lidl NI GmbH, clarified a number of issues which had been raised by the objector.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered an application which sought full planning permission for the construction of a basement car park, a 250 bed hotel including; a bar, conference facilities and ancillary accommodation, and the demolition of a 2 storey structure and a multi deck car park.

            It was reported that the site was located within the Belfast City Centre as designated in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan and was also within the City Centre Conservation Area and the Laganside North and Docks Character Area (CC015).

            The Committee approved the application subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and, in accordance with Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, delegated power to the Director of Planning and Place, in conjunction with the Town Solicitor, to enter into discussions with the applicant to explore the scope of any Planning Agreements which might be realised by way of developer contributions and, if so, to enter into such an Agreement on behalf of the Council.

(Councillor Armitage returned to the Committee table at this point.)

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for the retention of an existing recycling facility building and erection of a new recycling facility building and associated retaining wall.

            She advised that the site was located beyond the development limits of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan on lands just north of the Crumlin Road / Upper Hightown Road Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

(Councillor McDonough-Brown returned to the Committee table at this point.)

(Councillor Hussey had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for the provision of new transport hub building with a bus turning area and signalised access to the site.

            It was reported that the site was located within the development limits of Belfast in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) and was identified as being within Dairy Farm District Centre (ML11) and adjacent to Stewartstown Arterial Route AR 01/08.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

(Councillor Hutchinson, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

(Councillor Carson had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for the removal of Condition No. 5 of Z/2014/1279/F relating to the signalised junction.

She advised that the development plan zoned the site for mixed use and it had been identified in the plan as zoning BH05-Mixed Use Site |North foreshore.

            The Committee noted that there was an error under paragraph 9.2 - Assessment, of the case officer report which referred to a variation to the condition. The case officer advised that the application had previously proposed a variation of condition 5; however, following consultation with Transport NI, the condition would now be removed.

The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

(Councillor Hutchinson returned to the Committee table at this point.)

(Councillors Garrett and Armitage had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee considered an application which sought permission for a car centre for the sale and service of Porsche motor vehicles including associated workshop, parts storage and office accommodation.

            It was reported that the site was located within the Harbour Area in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, and fell within lands zoned for existing employment under designation BHA 06.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and subject to the Director of Planning and Place being authorised to draft the final wording of the conditions.

(Councillors Carson, Garrett and Hussey returned to the Committee table at this point.)

(Councillor McAteer had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

(Councillor McDonough-Brown, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for the change of use from an existing furniture store, coffee shop and hot food takeaway to 9 apartments with elevational changes.

            It was reported that the Development Plan (BMAP) identified the site as within the development limits of Belfast as a shopping/commercial area and within an Area of Townscape Character (ATC), Holywood Arches (BT 034).

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

(Councillor McDonough-Brown returned to the Committee table at this point.)

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for the change of use to a hot food bar on the ground floor which had last been used as a ground floor cafe.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

             (Councillor McAteer returned to the Committee table at this point.)

            The Committee considered an application for permission for the construction of a public house to include the installation of a proprietary odour abatement system.

            The case officer advised that after the agenda report had been published, two additional conditions had been proposed to restrict the external seating area to the proposed smoking area and prohibit music or amplified sound being played outside the building.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

(Councillor Armitage returned to the Committee table at this point.)

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for full planning permission for the erection of 11 apartments and 1 retail unit.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for advertising consent for 2 No. high level signs on the Innovation Factory building and 2. No. totem signs within the site at Springfield Road.

            It was noted that the application, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, had been presented to the Committee since the Council was the applicant.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered an application which sought full planning permission for a two storey rear extension and relocation of a side window.

            It was noted that the application, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, had been presented to the Committee since the applicant had a relative who was a member of Council staff.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.