Agenda and minutes

Apologies were reported on behalf of Councillors Hutchinson.

            Councillors Garrett, Carson and Armitage declared an interest, in that they had met with the Planning Department in relation to the application, however, they had not committed themselves to any particular course of action in relation to the application.           

            Councillors Lyons and McDonough-Brown declared an interest, in so far as they had met with some of the objectors, the applicant and the agent in relation to the application, however, they had not committed themselves to any particular course of action in relation to the application.

            The Chairperson reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 16th January, 2018, it had agreed to hold a pre-determination hearing and to defer formal consideration of the application until after the hearing had taken place. It had agreed also to receive representations from the objector and the applicant, limiting both deputations to ten minutes speaking time.

            The Chairperson explained that the Pre Determination Hearing would be used to hear the views of the interested parties and for Members to seek clarification from those parties on the facts surrounding the development. He advised that a decision on the Planning Application would not be reached at this meeting, however, it would be formally considered at a future Planning Committee.

            The Development Planning and Policy Manager outlined the context of the application and explained the relationship to the previous application covering the wider area, which had already been approved by the Department for Infrastructure. He advised that this application, Phase 1B, was adjacent to Phase 1A of the approved scheme but was a separate application in its own right. He highlighted that there were also a number of separate applications associated with this application including the listed building consents and those required for demolition within conservation areas.

The case officer referred to the published report in outlining the application and advised that the site was located within Belfast City Centre Conservation Area. He advised that 211 representations had been received (2 letters of support and 209 objections) to date.

During discussion, Members were apprised of the separation distances between the buildings outlined in the application, the size of the proposed apartments, the height of the proposed office building, listed building works and the retention of the John Luke mural at the Masonic Hall.

            The Committee received a representation from Ms. R. McCabe, Ms. M. Quigley, representing Save CQ, Ms. N. McVeigh, representing Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS), and Dr. P. Topping, representing First Presbyterian Church, in objection to the application.

            Ms. McCabe outlined a range of issues in objection to the proposed development. She suggested that Save CQ supported the development, in principle, and were realistic about the weight of the extant permission in the Committee’s consideration of this application. She suggested that, in light of the forthcoming publication of the Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP), a decision on this application would be premature, and an approval would set a precedent that would compromise the ability of the Council to deliver the LDP, such as the repopulating of the city centre. She questioned the reduction in housing provision of the current application and suggested that more affordable housing could be delivered as part of the development. She also questioned the removal of a pedestrian street, previously outlined in the extant application and suggested that the proposal was contrary to CC009 of BMAP, and a range of other historic building policies. She pointed out that the Historical Environment Division (HED) had objected to the application, and the Council’s Conservation Officer had also raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.