Agenda and minutes

            Apologies were reported on behalf of Councillor McDonough-Brown.

            The minutes of the meeting of 11th September 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 October, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            No declarations of interest were reported.

            The Committee agreed to hold a special meeting between 23rd and 26th October, in relation to planning application LA04/2018/2393/LBC - Conservation led works to Bank Buildings involving the taking down, recording and assessment for restoration purposes of the building above the fourth floor cornice line to the Bank Street, Castle Street and Castle Place elevations of the building for off-site storage.

            Pursuant to its decision of 11th September, it was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 25th September in respect of planning applications LA04/2017/1153/F - 10 Lorne Street, 4 Storey apartment development, comprising 31 apartments, car parking, amenity space and associated and LA04/2017/2811/F - 81-87 Academy Street and 2-6 Exchange Street - Demolition of existing building and erection of 16 storey residential building.

            The Committee considered a request from Councillor Lyons to visit a Clanmil Housing Scheme which intended to manufacture homes via off-site construction methods in Lisburn for a housing project in Carrickfegus.

            The Committee agreed to undertake a site visit to the Clanmil Housing Scheme in Carrickfergus.

            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 the delegated authority of the Director of Planning and Building Control, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 10th September and 9th October, 2018.

            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

      Resolved – That the Committee agrees to exclude the members of the Press and public from the Committee meeting during discussion of this item as, due to the nature of the items, there would be a disclosure of exempt information as described in Section 42 (4) and Schedule 6 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

(Councillors Carson and Lyons had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee was reminded that the Council was participating in a joint project with the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) and the other 10 council areas to examine the options to replace the Planning Portal.

            The Development Engagement Manager explained that, further information had been received from DfI relating to governance and legal issues. He indicated that options on the replacement Planning Portal would be submitted to the Planning Committee and the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee for consideration in due course.

Noted.

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

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

·        LA04/2017/2726/A light emitting diode (LED) display unit  510 South of Broadway Roundabout;

·        LA04/2017/2727/A light emitting diode (LED) display unit 50m North of Grosvenor Bridge over Westlink; 

·        LA04/2017/2731/A light emitting diode (LED) display unit on M2 when travelling South;

·        LA04/2017/2732/A light emitting diode (LED) display unit 145m West of Dee Street junction on Sydenham Bypass when travelling west; and

·        LA04/2017/2733/A - Light emitting diode (LED) display unit located at the footbridge at the former airport access point.

            The case officer reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 11th September, before presentation of the application had commenced, the Committee had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken.

            The Chairperson reminded the Committee that, as the application had not been presented at the previous meeting, all Members present would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, three amended drawings had been received from the architect on 12th October, to illustrate the following changes:

·         Omission of lift access to fourth floor amenity area. It appeared that the lift shaft would remain internally with access as far as the 3rd floor;

·         Elevations amended – detailing and materials on the third floor amended (Slate tiling to mansard roof with standing seam zinc cladding to dormers over windows); and

·         Amendments to third floor window details. 

            She also advised that the following correspondence had been received from various political representatives:  

·         Email from Councillor Craig requesting a meeting between the applicant and the Planning Service following the scheduling of the application as a refusal;

·         Email from Claire Hanna MLA which sought information on the planning application; and

·         Letter of support from Paula Bradshaw MLA: Support for social housing, redevelopment of vacant site, adequate parking provision and no overshadowing. Letter also supported a meeting between the applicant and the Planning Service.

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

            She explained that, after assessment, the application had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that:

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the development would not, if permitted, respect the surrounding context and was inappropriate to the character of the site in terms of layout, excessive scale and massing and appearance of buildings;

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the design of the development did not draw upon the best local traditions of form, materials and detailing and an inadequate landscaping scheme had been provided which did not soften the visual impact of the development or assist integration with the surrounding area;

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the development would, if permitted, have an unacceptable adverse effect on the proposed property in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and poor outlook for potential residents;

·         The proposal was contrary to Policy LC1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 Addendum in that the pattern of development was not in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the area;

·         The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy FLD 3 of Planning Policy Statement 15 in that the applicant had failed to submit information as requested to demonstrate that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

            The Committee agreed to consider the aforementioned applications together.

            The case officer outlined the applications for the erection of 11.2m high by 4.3m wide advertisement supporting structures containing 6.7m high by 3.8m wide LED screens at both locations.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, technical information had been submitted to address the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads concerns and the refusal reason, but no amendments had been made to the proposed scheme.          

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

            The case officer explained that, after assessment, both applications had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that:

·        The proposals were contrary to Planning Policy Statement 17 (PPS17): Control of Outdoor Advertisements; Policy AD1, Amenity and Public Safety, in that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not prejudice public safety; and

·        The proposals were contrary to Planning Policy Statement 17 (Control of Outdoor Advertisements) Policy AD 1 in that the proposed LED display units would, if permitted, be unduly visually prominent at these locations due to inappropriate scale and massing and, lead to an undesirable precedent for other similar signs along this main traffic route.

            The Committee received a representation from Councillor Craig in objection to the case officer’s recommendations for refusal. He suggested that similar proposals had been approved elsewhere in the UK and that the applicant had worked on the site specific project with DfI Roads. He advised that the applicant had submitted additional information on 12th October, however, the applicant had not had the opportunity to review or consider the response from DfI Roads.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. C. Bryson, agent, representing the applicant. Mr. Bryson raised the following points of objection to the officer’s recommendations for refusal:

·        In consideration of the proposal, weight should be given to the Department for Infrastructure Memorandum (2015) in relation to advertisements which stated “there is no conclusive proof that the presence of advertisements is a contributing factor in the cause of road traffic collisions”;

·        The proposals formed part of a wider DfI pilot scheme, where 7 locations would be proposed for such advertisements on a trial basis, which had not been mentioned in the report;

·        The case officer’s report had not outlined the socio-economic benefits of the proposal, which included revenue for the Council;

·        Information submitted to the Council had not been available on the Planning Portal;

·        The applicant had not been made aware of additional consultation information received by the Planning Service; and

·        Requested a deferral so that all matters could be considered.

            During point of clarification, Mr. Wilson confirmed that similar LED Advertisements had been installed in Birmingham, Milton Keynes and Glasgow.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. L. Walsh, Department for Infrastructure Roads. Mr Walsh advised that research indicated that digital advertisements had a dwell time that would distract drivers and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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

            The Committee considered the application for the demolition of an existing vacant three storey building on the site (under accompanying application LA04/2017/2783/DCA) and the erection of a 16 storey residential building comprising of 90 units (30 x one bed and 60 x two bed), ancillary ground floor uses including management suite, café, servicing (refuse/recycling/cycle storage/general storage), plant room, substation and associated public realm works.

            The Development Engagement Manager informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following points of objection had been submitted:

·         The impact of a 19 storey building in a conservation area;

·         The impact on the setting of St. Anne’s Cathedral and Library Service Head Quarters, which were listed buildings;

·         The height would set a precedent for tall buildings in city centre;

·         The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 6 and it would not respect the 3 storey height of adjoining buildings;

·         Questioned if consultation had been carried out with other environment and heritage bodies;

·         Questioned what comments the conservation officer and urban design officer had made in relation to the proposal as they had not been contained in the Development Management Report;

·         The demolition of a building sympathetic to height and scale of conservation area, and replacement with a 16 storey building was contrary to policy;

·         Suggested there were other sites within/ near city centre, outwith conservation areas and away from listed buildings that were more suited to high-rise development; and

·         The proposed building would be inappropriate to the genius loci of the surrounding area.

            The Development Engagement Manager outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack.

            He advised that a consultation response had also been received from Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads on 10th October which suggested that 25-45 car parking spaces were required and highlighted the subsequent impact on amenity of local residents and businesses.  However, a meeting had taken place on 15th October between DfI Roads, Officers and the applicant in which a 5 year travel card pack for residents to use public transport had been proposed, together with the submission of a travel plan. He advised that, on that basis, DfI Roads would withdraw their requirement for on-site parking. He explained that DfI Roads agreement on this needed to be confirmed in writing and the requirements would need to be secured if the proposal was approved.

            He pointed out that a condition regarding the proposed Public Realm Works would also be applied, which required proposed public realm improvement works in the vicinity of the site to be completed prior to occupation of the first residential unit, if the proposal was approved.

            He informed the Committee that the agent had also submitted a briefing statement to the Committee, however, all information had previously been included within supporting documents submitted to the Council during the processing of the planning application.

            The Committee received a representation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

(Councillors Carson and Lyons had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

The Committee was apprised of the principal aspects of the application.

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

            The Committee considered the aforementioned application.

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

            The Committee considered the application for the erection of 3 apartment blocks comprising of 45 two bedroom apartments, including communal circulation and ancillary areas along with associated site works, car parking, roads and landscaping.

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

            The case officer explained that, after assessment, the application had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to Policy HMO 5 of the HMO Subject Plan, in that the 10 percent limit for HMO’s within 300m either side of 107 on Donegal Avenue had already been exceeded.

            The Committee refused the application for the reason as set out in the case officer’s report.

The Committee considered the aforementioned application.

            The case officer highlighted that the application site fell within a HMO Policy Area (HMO 2/20) as designated within the HMO Subject Plan for Belfast. The Policy stated that planning permission would only be granted where the number of HMO dwellings units did not as a result exceed 30 percent of all dwelling units within the Policy Area. The Council’s records indicated that this figure had been exceeded.

The case officer explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that:

·         The proposal was contrary to Policy HMO 1 of the HMO Subject Plan for Belfast City Council Area 2015 in that the 30% limit for HMOs within the Thorndale HMO Policy Area (Designation HMO 2/20) had already been exceeded. Approval of this proposal would therefore be contrary to policy as it would contribute to an unacceptable concentration and proliferation of HMO use in the area; and

·         The proposal was contrary to HMO 6 of the HMO Subject Plan for Belfast City Council Area 2015 in that it was within a HMO Policy Area and would exceed 4 bedrooms.

The Committee refused the application for the reason as set out in the case officer’s report.

The Committee considered the application for the change of use from a private dwelling house to a 5 bed House of Multiple Occupation.

            The case officer confirmed that the application site was not within an HMO Policy Area or Development Node as designated in the HMO Subject Plan 2015 and complied with the HMO Policy Area and was acceptable in terms of the 10% threshold.

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

            The case officer confirmed that the application site was not within an HMO Policy Area or Development Node as designated in the HMO Subject Plan 2015 and complied with the HMO Policy Area and was acceptable in terms of the 10% threshold.

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

            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.