Agenda and minutes

            An apology was reported on behalf of Councillor Bunting.

            The minutes of the meeting of 14th 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 4th July, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Regarding item 8. i) LA04/2015/1271/F - 3 storey dwelling on site adjacent to 14 Rosetta Parade, Councillor McAteer indicated that she had arranged a meeting on behalf of the objectors. Councillor Mullan advised that she had been contacted by residents, and Councillor Lyons informed the Committee that he had been contacted by the applicant, both of which had been referred to an alternative Councillor, not on the Committee. Councillor Reynolds advised that he had a meeting with the applicant regarding the code of conduct and for information purposes only.

            In respect of item 8. n) LA04/2016/0857/F - Playground and fence at Black's Road, Councillor Garrett declared an interest in that he had been involved in the development of this application within his role as a Councillor.

            Councillor Mullan declared an interest regarding item 8. e) LA04/2016/0819/F - Vary condition relating to opening hours for retail premises at Ormeau Embankment, in so far as she had been involved in the original application in the previous Council and the current application for site approval.

            Pursuant to its decisions at the meeting of 14th June, it was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 23rd June in respect of application Z/2014/1635/F - Retrospective consent for alterations, refurbishment and change of use to 5 apartments, refurbishment of existing garage, shared parking provision and landscaping to the front of 21 and 22 College Gardens - 22 College Gardens, Belfast and land to front of 21 College Gardens.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which related to the extinguishment of a Public Right of Way at Slievegallion Drive.

            The Committee noted the consultation request from the Department for Infrastructure for the application Z/2013/0930/F - Proposed social housing development comprising 89 general needs housing units and 3 complex needs bungalows (92 units in total) associated landscaping, parking, and site works at Lands at Glen Road Heights, Glen Road.

            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, and all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 8th and 18th July.

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

            Planning Applications

·        In June, 169 applications had been validated. (170 in May).

            Planning Decisions

·        139 decisions had been issued in June (143 in May);

·        98% approval rate; and

·        130 (93.5%) decisions had been issued under delegated authority.

            No. of applications in system by length of time

·        At end of June, 2016 – 1160 live applications in the planning system (1129 in May);

·        64% of planning applications had been in the system for less than 6 months;

·        93 legacy applications currently left; and

·        A legacy meeting with Chairperson and Vice Chairperson had been arranged for 3rd August.

            The Committee noted the departmental performance update and agreed that the real-time statistics, as outlined, be captured and minuted each month.

            The Committee noted the contents of the Property Evaluation Summaries as outlined in the report for the proposed listed buildings (copy available on the council’s website) and agreed to support the proposed listing of the following buildings:- 

·        Cross of Sacrifice, Milltown Cemetery, 546 Falls Road;

·        Sandy Row Orange Hall, 206 Sandy Row;

·        Former School Adjacent to St Marks Church of Ireland, Ligoniel Road;

·        2 Malone Road;

·        4 Malone Road; and

·        Bank House, 133-135 Albertbridge Road.

(Councillors Hussey, Magee, and 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 the following report:

“1.0  Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1    To update members on the current status of the project for the removal of deemed consent for estate agent signage in the Stranmillis, Queens and Holylands areas all of which contain either a Conservation Area or an Area of Townscape Character. 

2.0   Recommendations

2.1   Members are asked to:

·        Note the current position.

·        Endorse the next steps including the proposed engagement events with residents, landlords and estate agents.

3.0   Main report

         Key Issues

3.1    The proliferation of estate agent signage in the areas of Stranmillis, Queens and the Holylands is so excessive that is considered to have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the areas and the wellbeing of the resident communities. 

         Previous attempts to tackle this issue have confirmed that fundamentally, the problem is so widespread that neither normal planning enforcement controls nor advertisement legislation are adequate to deal with it and special measures are required. 

3.2    Section 6 of The Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 permits the removal of deemed consent by the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) where it is ‘satisfied upon a proposal made to it by a council’. 

         Members were updated at the 18th June 2015 Committee Meeting of the intention to apply to DfI to remove the deemed consent for estate agent signs in these areas.  Estate agents would instead utilise other methods of advertising such as small advertisements behind windows or online advertising.  They could if they wished apply for planning consent to display, however this would be discouraged.

3.3    Planning Service has undertaken a number of steps in the pursuit of this project:

1.     A desk study to assess the methods undertaken in other jurisdictions to achieve the removal of deemed consent and to establish the geographical extent of the study areas.

2.     A mail shot to all known estate agents operating in the greater Belfast area to ensure they are aware of the relevant regulations.

3.     Surveying and monitoring across the academic year in December 2015, April 2016 and July 2016.  Other planning authorities who have successfully obtained the removal of deemed consent have supported their case with data spanning years rather than months and so further data points are being obtained from 2014 and 2015 using Google Street images.

4.     Contact has been made with DfI to establish expectations on the form and procedure of the submission

3.3    Successful applications in other jurisdictions have included stakeholder engagement.  The three main stakeholders would be residents, landlords and estate agents.  In order to ensure that Belfast City Council presents a strong and robust proposal to DfI, Planning Service proposes to invite stakeholder  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

            (Councillors Lyons, McDonough-Brown, Mullan and Reynolds took no part in the discussion or decision-making on this application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 14th June when it had originally been considered).

             The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 14th June, it had deferred consideration of an application for Z/2014/1635/F - Retrospective consent for alterations, refurbishment and change of use to 5 apartments, refurbishment of existing garage, shared parking provision and landscaping to the front of 21 and 22 College Gardens - 22 College Gardens and land to front of 21 College Garden.  That decision had been taken to enable the Committee to undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site and to assess the issues which had been raised in respect of the proposed layout of the development, together with its potential impact on the surrounding residential area.

            The case officer advised that after the agenda report had been published, additional information had been submitted by the Agent responding to a letter from Belfast Planning Service requesting clarifications on issued raised by Members at the site visit on 23rd June in respect of the historical use of the basement, and storage spaces outlined in the application.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Armitage,

            Seconded by Councillor Hussey,

      That the Committee agrees to reject the recommendation to approve the application on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to the following Strategic Planning Policy Statements : 6.304 – ‘assessing the appropriate amount of car parking, account should be taken of the specific characteristics of the development and its location’ in that it has not been demonstrated how car parking for the proposed number of units can be accommodated on the site without causing a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area; and 6.305 – in the context of car parking ‘other relevant planning considerations when determining such proposals will include traffic and environmental impacts and the proposals compatibility with adjoining land uses’ have not been considered. Furthermore, 3 out of 5 of the proposed apartments are below the required space standard.

            On a vote by show of hands, two Members voted for the proposal and six against and it was declared lost.

Further Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hutchinson,

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett,

            That the Committee agrees to adopt the recommendation to approve the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            On a vote by show of hands, six Members voted for the proposal and two against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for a three storey dwelling and that the application had been referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Long.

            The Case Officer advised that there was an error, under paragraph 9.2 (h) - Policy QD 1 of PPS 7, in the report which should read: ‘it is considered that the proximity of the proposed gable will have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties 1, 3 and 5 St. John’s Avenue by virtue of over-dominance and loss of light. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to criterion (h) of QD 1.’

            The Case Officer also advised that there was an addition under paragraph 11.1 – Reason for Refusal, in the report which should read: ‘in that the development would cause and adverse effect on neighbouring properties in terms of unacceptable dominance and loss of light.’

            He advised that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from Donaldson Planning, on behalf of the applicant, regarding the removal of the application from the agenda for reconsideration, the planning history of the site, no change in policy since the previous permission, issues already addressed by the applicant and a recent Planning Appeals Commission decision.

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of the proposal and explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the following grounds, that:

·        The proposal is contrary to criterion (h) of policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 (Addendum) – Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas – in that the development would cause and adverse effect on neighbouring properties in terms of unacceptable dominance and loss of light.

            The Committee received representation from Dr. G. Lavery, representing residents, who outlined a range of objections to the proposed application which related to dominance, loss of light, inadequate planning history decisions, and car parking, together with its potential impact on the surrounding residential houses.

            Mr. D. Donaldson, representing Donaldson Planning, who acted on behalf of the applicant, clarified a number of issues which had been raised by the objector and suggested there would not be an issue of dominance, the sun path would be unaffected, and there were other similar building arrangements in the area. He recommended that the planning history of the site should be the key determining factor and suggested that the Committee approve or defer the application to allow a site visit to be undertaken.

            The Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the alleged dominance of the proposal, 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 proposal at first hand.

            The Committee also agreed that a copy of the Planning Appeals Commission decisions referred to in the planning case officer’s reports or late items report pack be circulated to the Committee Members in advance of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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

            The Committee considered an application for the creation of a mezzanine floor in Unit 4, Shane Retail Park.

            The case officer reported that the site was located within the development limit for Belfast as designated in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) and was not zoned for any particular land use.

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

(Councillor Carson returned to the Committee table at this point)

(Meeting adjourned for 5 minutes at this point)

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for 11 apartments with parking, landscaping, associated site works and access arrangements.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. M. Costello and Mr. R. Quinn on behalf of residents of Glen Road who outlined a range of objections to the proposed application which related to scale, design, and loss of light and suggested that the Committee defer the application to allow a site visit to be undertaken. In addition, Councillor Groves explained her objections to the application and suggested that, consideration be given to the height of the proposed development.

            Mr. P. Byrne, Architect, representing the applicant, Larkfield Builders Ltd, clarified a number of issues which had been raised by the objector and outlined a range of points in support of the application which included design amendments of the current proposal, planning approval history of the site, and the development trends of the area. 

            After discussion, given the issues which had been raised regarding the impact on neighbouring properties, the Committee 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.

            (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 conservation, alteration and extension of the listed Ewart Building and the construction of a 17 Storey (68 metres, 72 metres AOD) new build tower to the rear of the listed building linked to it by a second floor walkway. The case officer advised that the proposal was for office accommodation throughout with ground floor retail in the tower element and also included the completion of new civic square accessed from Franklin Street and Bedford Street and would form a courtyard area with the rear of the Ewart building, the new build tower and the existing Invest NI building.

            She advised that the site was located in Belfast City Centre, within the Commercial Area Character area, the city centre area of archaeological potential and the Linen Conservation Area.

            The case officer advised that after the agenda had been published additional information had been submitted by the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS), the Belfast Civic Trust and the applicant:

·        She advised that the UAHS had outlined a range of issues which included the suggestion that the item be removed from the agenda and the Listed Building Consent also brought forward to Planning Committee; the lack of  commitment to the retention of the roof; the retention of floor plates; the inadequacy of information and compliance of this application against PPS6 and unsatisfactory assessment of this application by The Department for Communities Historic Environment Division (HED); the application being contrary to PPS 6 BH10 Demolition of a Listed Building, as referred to in the UAHS objection(June 2015); and the chance of ‘unpredicted’ or ‘unintended’ loss with the removal of large amounts of historic fabric.

·        She outlined the issues which had been raised by the Belfast Civic Trust regarding their support for the UAHS objection, in particular that the structural defect reasons for the demolition had not been substantiated and the proposed development and partial demolition of the building was contrary to PPS 6, BH10 (demolition of a listed building) and BH8 (alterations to listed buildings) and the lack of detailed information, together with the importance of built heritage of the city and its impact on tourism.

·        The case officer informed the Committee, that correspondence had also been received from the applicant, which acknowledged that the UAHS had not have been subject to the same discussions as they had had with the HED and highlighted that the architects and applicant had invited UAHS to visit the site on 25th July, where an update was provided regarding the detail of discussions with the Department and HED. Following the meeting, documents had been issued directly to the UAHS.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack. She highlighted the consultation work that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

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

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for full retrospective planning permission for a waste baler plant and the erection of a new enclosure to western side of existing building.

            She advised that the site was located beyond the development limits of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, 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.

            The Committee was apprised of the principal aspects of an application which sought outline planning permission for 42 apartments with vehicular access proposed from Blondin Street.

            The case officer advised that this planning application had been submitted in outline only, with all matters (siting, design, external appearance, landscaping and means of access) being reserved.

            During Members questions, the case officer pointed out that there was a live planning permission on the site, which had been approved prior to design criteria and BMAP, as referred to in paragraph 9.8 of the report.    

            After discussion, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable clarification of the issues raised by the Committee to be provided and for appropriate advice to be provided on potential reasons for refusal be outlined for consideration in an amended report at the next meeting.

(Councillor Carson returned to the Committee table at this point)

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

            The Committee considered an application for the variation of condition 11 "The retail cash and carry buildings hereby approved shall only be operational between the hours of 07.00hrs and 21.00hrs Monday to Friday, only between the hours 08.00 to 20.00 on a Saturday, and only between the hours 12.00 to 18.00 on a Sunday or public holiday" to permit Sunday and Bank Holiday opening hours from 8.00 to 18.00 of approval Z/2014/1350/F for storage and distribution centre with associated retail unit, customer cafe and car parking.

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

(Councillors Hussey and McDonough-Brown had left the room whilst the item was under consideration)

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of the proposal which comprised of a new clubhouse, a 200 seat stand, and alterations to existing standing area, new 3G surface to existing pitches including floodlights, dugouts, fencing, security tower, turnstiles, toilet blocks and associated ground works.

            It was noted that the application, which was a major application, had also been presented to the Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, since the Council owned the land.

            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 comprised of an extension to the existing stand with the existing football pitch to be resurfaced with 3G playing surface, additional 1.2M high gates and associated ground works.

            The case officer advised that the proposed site was located within the grounds of an existing football club facility known as Donegal Celtic at Suffolk Road and was approximately 1.8 hectares in size. She reported that the grounds consisted of a football pitch, with a stand and terraced standing area along the north-western boundary, with a further stand on the eastern side of the pitch adjacent to the southern boundary and there was a hard surfaced car parking area, with a club house building adjacent to the eastern site boundary.

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

(Councillors Carson and McAteer returned to the Committee table at this point)

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for Listed Building Consent for internal alterations including the formation of 3 openings to existing walls within the ground floor of Belfast City Hall. She advised that the structural openings as constructed were to be 1000mm wide by 2165mm high and the proposed works also involved the removal of a secondary internal masonry/stud wall which would be contained within one area of the building, adjacent the east entrance, in order to provide an additional larger room for future exhibitions.

            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 consent to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            The Committee noted that there were a range of applications that, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, had been presented to the Committee since the applicants were members of Council staff and agreed to deal with the items collectively.

            The Committee granted approval to the following applications, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s reports:

·        LA04/2016/0815/F - Single storey rear extension at 32 Leadhill Park;

·        LA04/2016/1233/F - Single storey rear extension at 21 Sandhill Parade;

·        LA04/2016/0973/F - 1.5 storey side extension at 3 Credenhill;

·        LA04/2016/1073/F - Single storey side extension at 29 Irwin Avenue; and

·        LA04/2016/1156/F - 2 storey rear extension at 41 Downshire Road

            The Committee also noted that the Scheme of Delegation would be reviewed in the future and the level of Council staff applications would form part of that review.

            The Committee considered an application for permission to install an illuminated sculpture measuring 11.3m high (from finished ground level) at Cave Hill Country Park.

            It was noted that the application, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, had been presented to the Committee since the location was part of the Belfast City Council Estate.

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

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

(Councillor Garrett, who had declared an interest in this application, took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The case officer outlined the principal aspects of an application for permission to provide a new playground facility and associated fencing at Black’s Road Park.

            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.

(Councillor Mullan returned to the Committee table at this point)

            The Committee was informed that the application sought permission for the change of use of a vacant office building within the Malone Conservation area to 9 Self contained apartments including a proposed extension, alteration and refurbishment, the demolition of internal partitions to facilitate new internal layout, demolition of an existing external stores for provision of a new external bin store, demolition of rear wall panel to facilitate a new single storey extension, removal of boundary bollards to accommodate a new boundary wall/railings, the retention of 9 existing car parking spaces and other associated site works.

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