Agenda and minutes

No apologies were reported.

            The minutes of the meeting of 13th November were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 3rd December, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor Magee declared an interest in Item 8a - LA04/2018/0040/F, King’s Hall application, in that he knew people who were involved in the construction of the site, and he left the room for the duration of the discussion.

            Councillor Nicholl declared an interest in Item 8a - LA04/2018/0040/F, King’s Hall application, in that she had met with a developer in relation to the site but that she had reserved judgement on the application and so did not withdraw from the discussion.

            Councillor Magee declared an interest in Item 8j – LA04/2018/1832/F, St. Gemma’s School and The Flax Centre, in that he had made representation on the application and he removed himself from the discussion while the application was under discussion.

            Alderman McGimpsey and Councillor Mullan declared an interest in Item 8l – LA04/2018/1881/F, 28 Cregagh Park, in that they had engaged with residents previously relating to anti-social behaviour in the area, but, as neither had engaged with residents in relation to the planning application, they did not withdraw from the discussion.

            Councillors Lyons and McAteer declared an interest in item 8w – LA04/2018/0009/F, Lands at 35-37 Diamond Gardens, in that they had met with residents but that they had reserved judgement on the application and so did not withdraw with the discussion.

Pursuant to its decision of 13th November, it was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 26th November in respect of planning application LA04/2018/0040/F - Demolition, refurbishment, creation of new floorspace and change of use from King's Hall venue to primary health care centre and associated works,  including boundary treatments on the Kings Hall and RUAS Site, South Of Upper Lisburn Road/Balmoral Avenue West Of Harberton Park And North-east Of Balmoral Golf Club, LA04/2018/0047/DCA - Demolition of 29 Balmoral Avenue and LA04/2018/0048/LBC - Conversion of, alterations to and side extension to King's Hall to accommodate Primary Health Care Centre, demolition of existing extensions to King's Hall and relocation and restoration of existing railings and pillars to the front of King's Hall.

            The Committee noted the Quarter 2 financial position for the Planning Committee, which was a net underspend of £326,000, with the forecast year end position being an underspend of £236,000. 

            The Committee was advised that the main reasons for the underspend related to planning fees received having exceeded the anticipated level and underspends across expenditure budgets in Building Control.  The Members noted that the underspend position for the Committee had been offset by underachievement of Building Control income by £152,000 and other planning related income streams by £13,000.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Department for Infrastructure which related to the proposal to abandon:

·        Land/footpath at the Westlink backpath between Albert Street and Cullingtree Road; and

·        Land/footpath at Whitla 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 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 6th November and 3rd December, 2018.

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

·        LA04/2018/0005/F – 6 Detached and 8 Semi-detached dwellings and associated parking, lands south and east of 148 – 163 Lagmore View Lane & 20-26 Lagmore View Road and north and west of 37 81 82 105 – 114 Lagmore Glen; and

·        LA04/2017/2733/A – Erection of a light emitting diode (LED) display unit A2 Sydenham Bypass adjacent to footbridge at the former Belfast City Airport access point.

            (Councillor Magee declared an interest and left the room whilst this item was under discussion.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 13th November, before presentation of the applications had commenced, it had deferred consideration so that the Committee could undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site.

            The case officer outlined the details of the three linked applications for the site.  She explained that the application sought the demolition of 29 Balmoral Avenue and buildings adjacent to and surrounding the listed King’s Hall.  The proposals included the restoration and refurbishment of the King’s Hall building, the creation of a new floorspace within it, and the construction of a two storey side extension to facilitate a primary healthcare centre.  The Committee was advised that an alteration of the Balmoral Avenue access was sought, a repositioned main access onto the Lisburn Road, an internal access road, surface level car parks, public realm and landscaping works and associated works, including boundary treatment.

            She drew the Committee’s attention to the main issues of consideration which were outlined within the report.

            The Committee was advised that three letters of support and sixteen letters of objection had been received before the publication of the Committee report, with another nine letters of support and one letter of objection having been received since its publication. 

            The Committee noted a late objection which had outlined the following issues:

·        traffic congestion on Balmoral Avenue and Lisburn Road,

·        responding to emergency and out of hours calls would be challenging,

·        centralisation of primary care and nursing services was detrimental to local communities; and

·        the development was not supported by the Commissioner of primary care services and was counter strategic to the implementation of the Bengoa recommendations.

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

            The case officer explained that the consultees were content with the proposals, subject to the conditions which were set out within the report.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Attwood.  He explained that he was a member of the Belfast Local Commissioning Group and that he had concerns about the centralisation of a number of GP practices in south Belfast as a result of the proposals.  He expressed concerns about the withdrawal of GP services from areas such as Sandy Row, Seymour Hill and the Lower Lisburn Rd and stated that this would be detrimental to the health and care of residents in those areas.  He stated that the Health and Social Care Board was unlikely to be able to fund the relocation of those GP practices.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. K. McCabe and Ms. A. Millar, NIPSA.  Mr. McCabe stated that he had concerns with the possible relocation of GP practices from areas of social deprivation to the King’s Hall site, as it would leave those areas with no local health services.  Ms. Millar added that she believed there to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

(Councillor Magee returned to the Committee at this point.)

(Alderman McGimpsey and the Chairperson had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.

(Councillor Hussey took the Chair at this point.)

            (The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor McDonough Brown) and Councillors Dorrian and Nicholl took no part in the discussion or decision making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 13th November when it had been originally been considered.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 13th November, given the issues which had been raised regarding the insufficient amenity space, an unsatisfactory living environment for the six apartments facing onto the courtyard in terms of outlook and lack of daylight and inadequate information to demonstrate mitigation of drainage impacts as discussed in the planning report, it had agreed to defer consideration of the applications to enable potential reasons for refusal to be outlined for consideration in an amended report at the next meeting.

            The Development Engagement Manager outlined to the Committee two possible reasons for refusal in relation to the Full Planning Application and one in relation to the Listed Building Consent element, as outlined in the Late Items report. However, he confirmed that the officer recommendation remained that the applications should be approved.

            The reasons for refusal for the Committee’s consideration were:

Full Planning Application:

1.    The proposal was contrary to Policy QD1 of the Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in overdevelopment of the site due to its inappropriate layout and design, would create an unacceptable living environment for prospective residents through poor outlook and inadequate daylighting resulting in a loss of residential amenity and failed to provide adequate private amenity space. The proposal would fail to provide a quality and sustainable residential environment.

2.    The proposal was contrary to Policy FLD 3 of the Department's Planning Policy Statement 15: "Planning and Flood Risk" in that it had not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide satisfactory measures for the mitigation of flood risk and, in particular, drainage.

Listed Building Consent:

1.    In the absence of a valid planning permission for the conversion of the building to the intended use, the proposed works are unjustifiable and unacceptable, having regard to Policies BH7 and BH8 of Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology, and Built Heritage.

            Proposal

Moved by Councillor Johnston,

Seconded by Councillor Carson and

      Resolved - That the Committee does not grant approval to the applications due to the reasons for refusal as outlined within the report.

            (The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor McDonough Brown) took no part in the discussion or decision making of the application since he had not been in attendance at the meeting on 16th October when it had been originally been considered.)

            The case officer reminded the Committee that it had considered the application at its meeting on 16th October, 2018, when it had agreed to defer consideration to provide the applicant with an opportunity to provide clarification on outstanding issues including drainage and overshadowing.

            She outlined to the Committee that, in addition to a shadow assessment and further drainage information having since been submitted to the Planning Service, further amendments had been made to the design and layout of the proposed building.  The amendments included a reduction by 5 dwelling units from 36 to 31, and a reduction by 5 parking spaces from 36 to 31.

            The Committee was advised that the amendments to the design included the replacement of the proposed mansard roof with a flat roof and the set back of the fourth floor utilising red/brown Belfast brick.  The Members were advised that three apartments on the third floor would benefit from an additional area of private amenity space.  The case officer explained that the main lift would only go to the third floor, thereby removing additional built form from the roof, but that a platform lift would be provided from the third floor to the rooftop amenity area to meet the needs of less mobile residents and visitors.

            The shadow analysis showed that each apartment would receive direct sunlight at some point during the day, which was acceptable in a tight, urban area. 

            A letter from NI Water regarding a requisition for a storm sewer had been submitted as an addendum to the Drainage Assessment.  The case officer outlined that the Council was now confident that an acceptable drainage plan could be agreed with the Rivers Agency.

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

(Councillor Garrett, Chairperson, resumed the Chair at this point)

            The case officer presented the details of the application to the Committee.  She outlined that the building was L-shaped, with a total height of 13.3metres from ground level.  The proposal included eight parking spaces at the rear of the building with external bin and cycle storage.

            The Committee was advised that two representations had been received.

            The case officer explained to the Committee the key issues in the assessment of the proposed development as outlined within the report.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. W. Shields, an objector to the application.

            Mr. Shields expressed concern at the proposed height of the building, in that it would create a loss of light within his dwelling.  He also stated that current traffic levels were high in the area and that there were not enough parking spaces provided with the development.

            The Chairperson clarified to the Committee that Mr. Shields had not originally submitted a written objection to the application but that he had since submitted a late objection to the Planning Service.

            The Committee then received representation from Mr. S. McKee, the agent for the application.  He stated that the proposed height of the building was lower than the adjacent apartment block which also fronted onto Castlereagh Place.  He explained that appropriate separation distances had been used to mitigate against the potential for overlooking as well as a loss of light.

            In relation to the concerns raised about traffic, he confirmed to the Committee that a transport assessment form and parking survey were submitted by a transport consultant in support of the application and that adequate on-street parking capacity existed in the locality.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor Dorrian

Seconded by Councillor Mullan and

      Resolved - That the Committee agrees to defer consideration to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand. 

(Alderman McGimpsey returned to the meeting at this point.)

            Before presentation of the application commenced, 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 proposals at first hand.

(Councillors Carson and McAteer left the room at this point.)

            The Development Engagement Manager outlined the details of the major planning application to the Committee.

            He pointed out that a number of revised schemes had been submitted following discourse between the applicant and the Council, the most recent of which had been received on 13th November.

            He referred to the Late Items Pack and advised the Committee that a late objection had been received from the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS) in relation to the most recent scheme.  The comments included:

·        UAHS was unable to access Conservation officer’s comments on the portal;

·        the case officer had overturned the original Conservation Officer’s advice in favour of the agent’s advice;

·        UAHS considered that the building made an historical  contribution to the conservation area;

·        that previous efforts to retain historic fabric were not being replicated in the application; and

·        that the proposed design was pastiche and unbecoming of the conservation area.

            He outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Pack. 

            The Committee also noted correspondence from the agent in response to the UAHS concerns, as set out in the Late Items Pack.

            He advised the Committee that, as the site was within the Linen Conservation Area, the key policies which were under consideration were Policy BH14 – Demolition in a Conservation Area, and Policy BH10 – Demolition of a Listed Building, of PPS6.

            He outlined that officers felt that the two single storey buildings on Linenhall Street were of little architectural merit and that they, in fact, detracted from the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  He stated that they had no objection to their removal in principle, provided that the replacement scheme was acceptable.

            He advised the Committee that the Clarence Gallery Building made a material contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Committee was advised that officers had concluded that, having given regard to all of the submitted information and consultee responses, an exceptional case had been made for its demolition. He outlined that consideration had been given to its structural condition, loss of historic fabric, the applicant’s unsuccessful marketing of the premises and viability. 

            He stated that officers felt that the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It would also result in inward investment and would bring a corner of the Conservation Area back into active use. He explained why officers were of the view that the proposal would not harm the setting of nearby Listed Buildings.

            The Committee was advised that, should it grant planning permission, the application would require notification to the Department for Infrastructure, in view of comments received from the HED which had sought the building to be lowered.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control to grant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10f

(Councillors Carson and McAteer returned to the room at this point.)

            The Development Engagement Manager presented the details of the major planning application to the Committee.

            The Committee noted that seven letters of support and two letters of objection had been received.  He advised the Members that the proposal had been amended to address concerns in terms of the impact on amenity of a neighbouring residential property and the design of the façade onto the Ormeau Road.

            He advised the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, three objections had been received:

·        the proposal would dominate and form a competing focus to the listed buildings in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment;

·        overdevelopment in the area; and

·        should approval be granted, a condition should be added to ensure there was no recreational use of any external terracing.

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

            The Committee was advised that the application would require notification to the Department for Infrastructure as HED had objected regarding the impact on the setting of listed buildings.

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

            (Councillor Magee declared an interest in this item and left the room while the application was under consideration.)

(Councillor Nicholl left the room at this point.)

            The case officer provided the Committee with the details of the application.  He explained that the site was on unzoned land and that the principle of the mixed use development including housing, retail and community use was acceptable.

            The Committee noted that the applicant had carried out their duty under Section 27 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 to consult the community in advance of submitting an application. The case officer pointed out that nine letters of support had been received, and no objections.

            The case officer outlined to the Members that the Planning Service was awaiting a response from the Department for Infrastructure Roads.

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

(Councillor Nicholl returned to the meeting at this point.)

            The case officer provided the Committee with an overview of the report, which was for a social residential development of 45 dwellings and 8 apartments with an associated access road, parking and landscaping.

            He outlined that Environmental Health, Rivers Agency, NIEA, HED and NI Water had no objections to the proposals subject to the conditions.

            The Committee noted a late objection letter which had been received after the agenda had been published and the response of the Planning Department to the issues which were also set out in the Late Items Pack.          

            The Committee was advised that a late response from DfI Roads had been received immediately before the meeting had commenced, which stated that it had no objection in principle but had some concerns with the low number of car parking spaces included within the scheme. 

The case officer advised the Committee that it was considered that the proposal would provide a shortfall of two spaces within the curtilage of the apartment block but that it was considered acceptable in this case, due to the benefits of an increased amenity space, in addition to the site’s proximity to a bus and Glider route on the Stewartstown Road.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Heading.  He advised the Committee that he had held numerous meetings with residents in relation to the proposals.  He stated that, while social housing was much needed and was to be welcomed in the area, he still had concerns regarding the shortfall in the number of car parking spaces which were being provided.  He stated that he had concerns that, if the application was to be granted, future private housing developments with a shortfall of parking spaces would become acceptable.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. S. McKee, the agent.   In relation to the queries raised regarding the parking provision, he advised the Committee that the 12 units of the accommodation in question were for “Cat1 - active elderly”, where generally the uptake for parking spaces was lower than average.  He also pointed out that the general provision for social housing outside of city centres was 1 parking space per unit, and that Choice Housing was providing 1.25 spaces per unit in this case.

            Arising out of discussion, the Committee agreed that the Department for Infrastructure Roads be invited to a future Thursday Planning Workshop in order to discuss their policies in relation to sufficient car parking provision for planning applications, and their response times as a consultee.

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

            (Alderman McGimpsey and Councillor Mullan stated that they had previously engaged with residents of Cregagh Park in relation to anti-social behaviour in the area, but that neither had engaged with residents in relation to this planning application so they did not withdraw from the discussion.)

            The case officer outlined the details of an application for 2 detached and 4 semi-detached dwellings with associated works to the Committee.  She advised the Members that the Council had an estate in the land.

            The Committee noted that the proposal involved the loss of open space but that it was considered that an exceptional case had been made in that the proposal would deliver substantial community benefits which would outweigh that loss.  The case officer highlighted that the applicant had offered to enter a legal agreement to bring forward an offset provision of works to benefit the wider community.

            She outlined that Transport NI, HED, DAERA, Rivers Agency, Environmental Health and Tree officers had been consulted about the proposals and had offered no objections.

            The Committee was advised that two petitions of support and three letters of objection had been received.  The Committee noted that the issues raised had been considered within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control to grant conditional planning permission, and delegated power to the City Solicitor for the completion of a legal agreement to secure the upgrade works to the Cregagh Glen.

            The case officer provided an overview of the application for the replacement of a 15metre high telecoms column with a 20metre high column, including shroud enclosed antenna and associated works and an equipment cabinet. 

            She explained that, as a 15m mast already existed on the site, it was difficult to conclude that the proposal would have any further impact on the Conservation Area.  The Conservation Area officer had offered no objection.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Boyle.  He stated that he felt measures should be taken to disguise the mast to ensure that it fitted in with the surroundings, given its location within the Malone Conservation Area. He requested that the Committee would consider adding a condition which would require the applicant to remove graffiti from the cabinet within a defined timeframe.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the issues which were also set out in the Late Items Pack.                              

            The Committee received representation from the agent, Mr. L. Ross.  He highlighted the necessity of the upgrade of the telecommunication masts across the city.  He stated that the site was low lying and that it was necessary to raise the height of the mast in order to upgrade the signal. He added that the slightly different location of the new mast allowed it to be installed before the old mast was removed, to ensure un-interrupted coverage.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions, to include a regular programme of maintenance.

            The case officer provided an overview of the application for the installation of a 15metre high telecoms street pole with integrated antenna and two 300mm dishes plus four ground based equipment cabinets and ancillary equipment.  She explained that it would replace an existing base station at 67-73 Glenmachan Street.  The Members were advised that the new location was adjacent to a McDonald’s hot food sit in-takeaway diner and drive-through.

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 provided an overview of the application for the installation of a 20metre telecoms column, including shroud enclosed antenna and associated works and two equipment cabinets.  She explained that it would replace an existing 17.5metre high column.

            The Committee was advised that the site was on the corner of the slip-road connecting the Blacks Road to the M1 motorway.

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 provided an overview of the application for the replacement of a 15metre high telecoms column with a 20metre high column, including shroud enclosed antenna and associated works and an equipment cabinet. 

            The Committee was advised that the site was located along the footpath of the Milltown Road, in an area designated as whiteland within BUAP 2001 and dBMAP 2015.

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 provided an overview of the application for the replacement of a 15metre high telecoms mast with a 17.5metre mast, with an equipment cabinet. 

            The Committee was advised that the site was located 22metres from the current mast, on a footpath south east of 125 Upper Malone Road.  The case officer outlined to the Committee that the site was on a busy road with a well-established backdrop of trees.

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 provided an overview of the application for the replacement of a 15metre high telecoms column with a 20metre high column, including shroud enclosed antenna and associated works and an equipment cabinet. 

            The Committee was advised that the site was located along the footpath of the Belvoir Road, in an area identified as being on the Strategic Road Network.

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

            Before presentation of the application commenced, 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 proposals at first hand.

(Councillors Carson and Dorrian left the room at this point.)

            (Councillors Lyons and McAteer declared an interest in this item, in that they had met with residents in relation to this application, but stated that they had reserved judgement on the application, so they so they did not withdraw from the discussion)

            The case officer outlined the details of the report to the Committee, which was for 5 detached dwellings and 10 semi-detached dwellings on the site of a former dairy storage depot.

            She explained that six representations had been received raising objections which had been considered within the report.  The Committee was advised that NIEA, NI Water, Rivers Agency, DfI Roads, Environmental Health and Tree Officers had been consulted and had raised no objections.

            The Committee was advised that a Noise Impact Assessment had been carried out, given the site’s location near to the railway line, and that the results had raised no concerns.

            She highlighted that, since the publication of the report, two letters of objection had been received, which stated:

·         concerns regarding the impact of development on sewage infrastructure;

·         impact on traffic as Diamond Gardens was already congested area;

·         negative impact on human health as result of fumes and air pollution; and

·         flooding concerns.

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

            That Committee agreed to grant approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions,  to include the commissioning of a brick boundary wall with Diamond Grove.