Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

            The minutes of the meeting of 17th January and the special meeting of 24th January 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 February, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Regarding item 11.n) LA04/2016/2500/F- Upgrade to bowling green walls, paths, flood lighting, PA system, irrigation compound with Glass Reinforced Plastic kiosk, Alderman McGimpsey and Councillors Armitage, Jones, and Hussey declared an interest, in so far as they were Members of the East Area Working Group which had allocated funding to the project.

            Councillor Garrett declared an interest regarding item (p) LA04/2015/1488/F- 122 Blacks Road - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of proposed 6 apartments with associated parking and amenity space, in that he had spoken with the applicant about the proposal.

            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, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 9th January and 10th February.

            The Development Engagement Manager provided the following information on the Department’s performance to date:

            Planning Applications

·        123 applications had been validated in January, 2017; and

·        Overall numbers of applications validated this year had increased by 15% (1,687 up to 31st January, 2017 compared to 1, 442 up to 31st January, 2016).

            Planning Decisions

·        156 decisions had been issued in January, 2017.

·        92% approval rate;

·        92% decisions had been issued under delegated authority; and

·        the number of decisions issued to date had increased by 32% over the same period in 2016. (1,184 up to 31st January, 2016 compared to 1,741 up to 31st January, 2017).

            No. of applications in system by length of time

·        1,024 live applications were in the system at end of January, 2017;

·        57% of applications were in the system for less than 6 months; and

·        Less than 29 legacy applications were outstanding (reduced from 780 at transfer in April, 2015).

Performance against statutory targets (figures available up to 31st December)

·        The statutory target for processing major development planning applications from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date was within an average of 30 weeks. Up to 31st December, 2016 the average processing time to decide major applications was 65 weeks. This, however, included legacy applications and those Major applications which had been delayed whilst a Section 76 agreement had been put in place;

·        The statutory target for processing local development planning applications from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date was an average of 15 weeks. Up to 31st December, 2016, the average processing time to decide local applications was 15 weeks; and

·        The statutory target was that 70% of all enforcement cases are progressed to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt of complaint. Between 1st April and 30th November, 2016, 76.7% of enforcement cases had been concluded within 39 weeks.

Noted.

            The Committee considered the following report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1      To present for consideration and comment a consultation from the Planning Appeals Commission on Draft Procedures for the independent examination of Local Development Plans.

1.2      The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) has consulted the Council on the preparation of a guidance document in relation to the procedures surrounding the independent examination stage of the Local Development Plan. It has issued a consultation document comprising draft procedures for comment – copy attached at Appendix 2.

1.3      The closing date for submissions is 27th March 2017. The proposed draft response is attached in Appendix 1 for consideration.

2.0      Recommendation

2.1      It is recommended that the Committee notes the consultation draft procedures document issued by the PAC (see Appendix 2). It is further recommended that the Committee considers the draft written response to the PAC (see Appendix 1) and, if appropriate, approve its submission to the PAC as the Council’s response to the consultation.

3.0      Main Report

            Introduction

3.1      Members will be aware that the new Belfast Local Development Plan is currently in preparation and the Council’s Preferred Options Paper has recently been published for consultation. The Plan is made up of two main components: the Draft Plan Strategy and the Local Policies Plan. Following extensive engagement, both parts of the Plan will be subject to an independent examination, which will be carried out by the PAC.

3.2      The independent examination is specifically to assess the conformity of the plan documents with the statutory requirements and their soundness. The concept of soundness is based on a number of tests set out in the former Department of the Environment’s Development Plan Practice Note 6. The tests are based upon three categories which relate to (1) how the development plan document has been produced; (2) the alignment with central government/regional plans, policy and guidance; and (3) the coherence, consistency and effectiveness of its content. A summary of the tests for soundness is included at Appendix 3 of the PAC’s consultation document.

            Consultation Document

3.3      The PAC’s draft independent examination procedures document provides guidance on a number of key matters. These include the making of representations, the submission of the plan documents to the Department (and the PAC), the independent examination hearing itself and the PAC’s final report. The guidance is aimed at all parties involved in the process, including planning authorities, consultants, developers, interest groups and individual objectors.

3.4      The commitment by the PAC to prepare procedural guidance on the independent examination of the Local Development Plan is to be welcomed. The guidance will be useful in preparing for and participating in examinations, particularly in the context of the new planning process and new planning authorities.

3.5      The draft guidance stresses that the independent examination of the plan documents is solely on statutory requirements and soundness. This fact is referred to throughout the guidance and it is important that all parties are fully aware of this requirement. Restricting the examination  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

            The Committee considered the following report, together with the associated appendices:

“1.0      Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1      The purpose of this report is to establish Belfast City Council’s response to a consultation on proposed changes to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

2.0      Recommendations

2.1      That the Planning Committee supports the recommended response to the consultation as set out at Appendix 1.

3.0      Main report

3.1      Background

            The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations were introduced a number of years ago to provide a framework for assessing ‘significant environmental effects’ resulting from certain development proposals. The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations stem from a European Union Directive and are currently enshrined in the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015.

            The Environmental Impact Regulations generally apply to schemes whose impacts are more than local in nature. For example, they may apply to regional significant proposals or smaller developments that may raise critical issues that extend beyond the site. ‘Significant environmental effects’ may be environmental, economic or social impacts.  Both positive and negative significant effects must be considered. Where a proposal is likely to result in ‘significant environmental effects’, the planning application must be accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The purpose of the Environmental Statement is to set out what the significant environmental effects are and how these are to be managed or mitigated through the development process. Applications requiring an Environmental Statement are subject to additional requirements around the length of determination and consultation.

            The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations stipulate two categories of development: Schedule 1 and Schedule 2. Schedule 1 developments include major infrastructure projects such as power stations, harbours and oil refineries. An Environmental Statement is automatically required for any development falling within Schedule 1. Schedule 2 sets out a range of development types with thresholds. If the proposal exceeds the threshold, or if the site is within a sensitive area, the determining authority must decide whether the proposal would likely result in ‘significant environmental effects’. This process is called ‘screening’. If the answer is affirmative then the application must be supported by an Environmental Statement. The applicant may request that the determining authority advises them what should be included in the Environmental Statement. This process is called ‘scoping’.

3.2      Purpose of the consultation

            The Department of Infrastructure (DFI) is consulting on changes to the Environmental Impact Regulations, as a consequence of a new European Union Directive on EIA (2014/52/EU). The new Directive is intended to simplify the rules for assessing the potential effects of projects on the environment. If adopted, the new Regulations will be enshrined in the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015.

            Some of the key changes to the EIA Regulations are:

·        Reducing administrative burdens and processes streamlined through a joint/coordinated procedure when a development also requires an assessment under the Habitats/Wild Birds Directive;

·        The environmental factors to be considered in the assessment have been refined and broadened to reflect emerging challenges that are important to the EU;

·        Strengthening of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

            The Committee noted the contents of the report regarding supplementary waste storage guidance for houses and apartments in Belfast which had been referred to the Committee by the People and Communities Committee on 10th January.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Department for Communities which related to the proposed extinguishment of a Public Rights of Way at a pathway at rear of Ravenhill Reach to Ormeau Embankment.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Department for Communities which related to the confirmation of extinguishment of a Public Rights of Way at Cairns Street.

Restricted Item

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

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

Withdrawn Items                  The Development Engagement Manger provided an update regarding the development of a Framework for planning agreements and securing developer contributions.

            He advised that the Framework would be comprised of two distinct parts. The first part would set out the Council’s legal and policy basis for planning agreements, strategic alignment, infrastructure, viability and monitoring arrangements covering the operational aspects of the policy. The second part would provide detailed information on the types of obligations which might be required and under what circumstances. It would provide the methodologies which should be applied for ascertaining appropriate contribution levels, given the specific context of an application.

            He advised that the Framework was intended to provide the development industry with the certainty required in relation to this area of planning and that an initial scoping exercise for this project had been produced which identified, in agreement with officers, seven cities to use as comparators in finalising a local approach to planning agreements.

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

·        the Executive Summary produced by Three Dragons (Appendix 1);

·        the forward work programme (Appendix 2) ; and

·        the Department for Infrastructure Development Management Practice Note 21 – Planning Agreement (Appendix 3).

            The Committee noted that applications LA04/2016/2235/F - 98 Sandhurst Drive, Stranmillis - 2 storey rear extension Elevation changes and LA04/2016/1347/F - 16-18 Glen Road, Castlereagh - Demolition of existing building and erection of 8 apartments comprising of 2 blocks of 4 apartments with associated car parking and landscaping had been withdrawn from the agenda.

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

(Councillor Jones took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 17th January when it had originally been considered).

            (Before the meeting, the Chairperson informed the Committee that a second request to speak had been received from the applicant citing exceptional circumstances. He advised that the applicant had already made a presentation at the Committee Meeting on 17th January. The Committee agreed not to receive the second deputation).

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 17th December, given the issues which had been raised regarding the character of the area, car parking, and the size of the proposal, it had 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 had agreed also that appropriate conditions be included within the report for consideration by the Committee in February, so that the option to grant approval to the proposal could be considered.

            The case officer outlined the contents of the report and informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from the agent objecting to the recommendation to refuse the application. He suggested that all forward looking policies pointed towards an increase in the number and choice of dwellings needed in Belfast, the elevated gardens were due to the lie of the land, the applicant had never experienced privacy problems, the ownership proposal was not supported by any known planning policies and that the family needed to maintain flexibility.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack.         

            The case officer advised that if the Committee were inclined to approve the application, draft conditions were outlined in the report, including one in relation to the ownership of the dwellings by a Section 76 agreement and a planning agreement. He highlighted that an additional occupancy planning condition to restrict the occupancy of both dwellings to the same family ownership also be included, as follows: “The occupation of dwelling number 42a, as indicated on drawing 03, shall be limited to direct family Members of the occupants of dwelling 42. A direct family member should be a spouse, parent, or sibling, son or daughter, and should include any dependents of that person or a widow or a widower of such a person, in the interests of residential amenity.” He advised that it was recommended that delegated authority also be given to the Director of Planning and Place to finalise planning conditions.

            The case officer advised that the recommendation remained that the application should be refused for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal was contrary to Policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments and Policy LC 1 of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 7: Safeguarding the Character of Established  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

(Alderman McGimpsey and Councillors Hutchinson and Jones took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 17th December when it had originally been considered).

(Alderman McGimpsey and Councillor Hutchinson had left the room whilst the item was under consideration)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 13th December, it had deferred consideration of the application to enable the applicant, the Department for Infrastructure, to respond formally to the issues which had been raised, to ensure connectivity for the future in line with the Local Development Plan.

            The case officer advised that the Planning Service had written to Transport NI on 20th December, 2016.

            He summarised the reply from Transport NI regarding its exploration of the possibility of improving connectivity between Black’s Road Park and Ride and advised that Transport NI was not willing to enter into a Section 76 Agreement or provide a financial contribution towards upgrading Black’s Path.

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

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

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 15th November, 2016 it had resolved to approve the application subject to an Agreement under Section 76 of the Planning Act. However, it had been brought to the Planning Service’s attention that a number of residential addresses in the adjacent Victoria Square Apartment complex had not received neighbour notification of the proposal, and thus were not given the appropriate opportunity to view the proposal and make comment. Therefore, the Committee was requested to consider the application afresh.

            The Development Engagement Manager outlined the contents of the proposal and highlighted the additional condition regarding a construction management plan to address issues of noise, dust and vibration during the construction phase.

            He informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from the residents, which raised the following points:

·        the date for the Neighbour Notification was after the committee report date of 7th February; 

·        the developer relied on the planning history to justify the proposal;

·        residents had no recollection of being notified on the previous 2011 application;

·        residents addresses were incorrect on the Council’s database;

·        the above complaint had not been responded to;

·        requested that address points for 2011 application be cross referenced to the address points which currently appear on the portal for the Apartments at Victoria Square Residences;

·        the applicant should not benefit from a previous permission;

·        lack of Community Consultation and the failure to conduct community consultation was unlawful;

·        communication issues with the agent;

·        height adds one storey to previous approval and was contrary to BMAP;

·        the roof plant and screening;

·        drawing 15067-DL(PL) 402 shows the Victoria Square Penthouse level to be higher than the roof level of the proposed building. This conflicts with a drawing in the Design and Access Statement;

·        the distances between the buildings. Distances between the office building and apartment balconies;

·        the agent had misunderstood residents’ concerns and had only considered noise from the 6th floor terrace and not overlooking;

·        overshadowing and loss of light;

·        suggested a deferral on the basis that the architects had not addressed their concerns and if the application was not deferred and permission was granted then the following restrictions should be imposed:

Ø     the height to be in line with BMAP and proximity to

             the perimeter of the site;

Ø     location, size, opaqueness and number of windows;

Ø     noise and nuisance associated with construction /

             hours of construction; and 

Ø     hours of operation for the office use.

·        The Regional Development policy and other policies encouraged residential development in the City and that commercial development would compromise this and residential approvals.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack.         

            He also highlighted that the Urban Design Consultant had outlined support of the scheme and the conservation officer had no objection. 

            The Committee received representations from Mr. B. MacDonald, acting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

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

            The Committee considered a proposed application.

            It was reported that the Council was awaiting a final response from a statutory consultee, Shared Environmental Services, however, the application could be referred back to Committee it any material concerns were to be raised by the consultee.

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

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

The case officer outlined the main aspects of the application.

            It was reported that the site was located within Connswater Retail Park in East Belfast, and comprised of three empty retail warehouse units constructed from brick with sheet metal cladding and roofing.

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

            The case officer apprised the Committee of the proposal for the construction of a 3G pitch, dugouts, fencing, 200 seater stand and reconfiguration of previously approved 5 a-side pitches.

            The case officer pointed out that there was an error in the published title of the application which should read “Shore Road Playing Fields” instead of “Grove Playing Fields.”

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

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

            The Committee considered a proposal for listed building consent for internal operations to Belfast City Hall to include the provision of toilet facilities for disabled persons within the existing ground floor male toilets. Works would include the removal and placement of stud walling in the east entrance foyer.

            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 within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee also noted that access to public amenities and signage for partially sighted people be considered as additional informatives of Council Planning Applications. 

            The case officer outlined the proposed planning application located at Sydenham Road within the harbour area.

            She advised that there was relevant planning history on the site under application Z/2007/2018/F granted in 2008, and highlighted that although this permission had expired in 2013 it remained a material consideration.

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

            The case officer outlined the main aspects of the application for the alteration and extension of the existing building to provide 2 one bedroom apartments to the upper floors and retention of existing retail unit for use as drop in centre.

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

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

            The case officer outlined an application which sought to vary condition 6 of approval Y/2009/0462/O to state: None of the residential units in any phase hereby approved shall be occupied until the works to restore the listed and retained building(s) within that phase have been completed in accordance with the plans approved under Y/2009/0461/F or Y/2014/0401/F relevant to the phase in question and written confirmation had been obtained from the Council (Amended Description).

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS) regarding the additional phases and redistribution of works to historic buildings. It suggested that the proposal did not appear to be in accordance with previous plans and raised concerns that the report did not refer to amended site plans and that there was no official response from Historic Environment Division on the portal. The correspondence also requested information on what investigations had been undertaken to ensure compliance with PPS23 – Enabling Development prior to an opinion to approve and suggested that the application should be refused and a new application lodged to clearly state changes to the plans and condition 6.

            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 that the application proposed to insert a reference number (recent Phase 2 Approval Y/2014/0401/F) to condition 6 and that no other changes had been proposed.

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

(Councillors Dorrian and Hussey had left the room whilst the item was under consideration)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 17th January, it had granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and had agreed also to delegate power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of the conditions.

            However, the case officer advised thatthe Committee was requested to consider the application afresh as two objections had been received which had raised the following issues:

·        Height of the boundary fence – detrimental to health;

·        Impact of the proposed fence on sunlight;

·        Adversely impact the value of properties; and

·        Inconvenience to residents outweighs any benefits to spectators.

            The case officer stated that it was considered that the height of the close boarded fence on top of the retaining wall would not be overly dominant or adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Whilst the proposed netting would be of a significant height it would allow light to penetrate through and given the orientation of the dwellings overshadowing from the proposed netting would not occur.

            He informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the consultation response had been received from the Environmental Health Service which approved of the conditions and informatives as set out in the report.   

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and agreed also to delegate power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of the conditions.

            The case officer apprised the Committee of the above-mentioned proposal.

            He advised that the site was located within Belfast’s development limits and zoned for housing (WR 04/09) in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, 2015.

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

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

            The case officer outlined the proposed planning application.

            The planning history at this location related to an expired approval in 2010 (Y/2010/0168/O) for a residential development.

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

            The Committee considered a proposal for an upgrade to a bowling green including works to walls, paths, flood lighting, PA system and the installation of an irrigation compound with a glass reinforced plastic kiosk.

            The case officer pointed out that there was an error in the published referral route of the application which should read “Council has an Interest in the project” instead of “Request by Belfast City Council Member”.

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

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

The case officer outlined the proposed planning application.

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

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

(Councillor Garrett, 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 case officer outlined the main aspects of the application.

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

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

            The Committee considered a proposal for the demolition of vacant units and the proposed development of 10 social housing apartments with parking and associated site works.

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

            The case officer outlined the main aspects of the application and informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, additional information had been received from Springfield Park Residents’ Association in regards to the inaccuracy of the description of the building as a ‘community centre’, the Covenant restrictions of the building, and the community not being informed of the owners intention to sell. It also outlined objections in regards to designation of the land and highlighted a letter from the Housing Executive from 1991 which indicated that the green area be retained as recreational area for the community. The correspondence also suggested that the proposal would cause overdevelopment of the area, deprive the community of their recreation area and that there would be high risk of creating a hotspot for anti-social behaviour. 

            The case officer advised that further correspondence had also been received from the Agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, regarding the need for housing in the area, a social value clause within the construction contract, the consistency of the design, and proposed maintenance of dwellings. It suggested that the proposal did not prejudice any ambition the local community might have for an enhanced open space and did not encroach on the adjacent open space.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack.         

            After discussion, given the issues which had been raised regarding the number of objections received and the zoning of the land, 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 proposal at first hand. 

            The Committee agreed also that the Housing Executive Estates Department be contacted to clarify the zoning of the site.

            The Committee agreed to deal with the aforementioned items together.

            The case officer outlined the proposed planning applications for ballstops at Cliftonville Playing Fields.

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