Agenda and minutes

An apology for inability to attend was reported from Alderman McGimpsey.

            The minutes of the meeting of 11th and 13th December were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 7th January, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            The Committee was advised that the City Solicitor, in accordance with Section 15 of the Committee’s Operating Protocol, had agreed to refer applications LA04/2018/0040/F, LA04/2018/0047/DCA and LA04/2018/0048/LBC – “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” back to the Committee.

            Councillor Campbell declared an interest in Item 7d, LA04/2018/0123/F - Proposed change of house types of planning permission Z/2010/1250/F relating to sites 01-13, 44-46, 60-69 and 86-107, car parking, landscaping and associated site works (38 dwellings in total), in that she had previously expressed an opinion in relation to the application, and she left the room for the duration of the item.

            Councillor Hutchinson declared an interest in Item 7k, LA04/2018/1611/F - Replace existing fencing, floodlighting, new MUGA, new playground area, upgrade car park surface and new paths at Navarra Place, Newtownabbey, in that one of the persons involved with the application was known to him, but he stated that he had reserved judgement on the application and so did not leave the room.

            Pursuant to its decision of 11th December, it was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 9th January in respect of planning applications LA04/2018/0951/F - 4 Storey Block containing 20 Apartments and roof terrace, with 8 in curtilage parking bays and associated landscaping at 2-6 Castlereagh Place, LA04/2017/2776/F - 2 storey McDonalds restaurant Land to a section of existing Tesco's car park Knocknagoney Road and LA04/2018/0123/F - Proposed change of house types of planning permission Z/2010/1250/F relating to sites 1-13, 44-46, 60-69 and 86-107, car parking, landscaping and associated site works at lands located to the rear of 29 to 36 Mill Valley Place.

            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 4th December, 2018 and 7th January, 2019.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in relation to an application for a Vesting Order of lands at a vacant site at the former Hannahstown Hill/Glen Road location, for the purpose of effecting the improvement of the amenities of the area by upgrading the footpath leading from Glen Road to Hawthorne Glen and Lenadoon Estates.

            The Committee considered correspondence which had been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED) regarding the proposed listing of Donegal Road Methodist Church, 381 Donegal Road, BT12 6GR.

            The Committee supported the proposed listing.

            The information contained in the reports associated with the following items 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 the items as, due to the nature of the item, there would be a disclosure of exempt information as described in Section 42(4) and Section 6 of the Local Government Act (NI) 2014.

            (Mr. D. O’Kane, Principal Planning Officer, attended in connection with this item)

            The Principal Planning Officer reminded the Members that the draft Plan Strategy (dPS) was the first part of two documents which would comprise the new Local Development Plan. 

            He explained that, in line with government guidance, the dPS was not spatially detailed or site specific and that it represented an over-arching strategy and general operational policies. 

            The Committee was advised that 109 responses had been received during the twelve week consultation period for the dPS.  The Principal Planning Officer provided the Members with an overview of the feedback which had been received, including a summary of the respondents and the areas of comment.

            He outlined that the next stage of the process was to complete the collation of the responses in advance of their publication. The Members were advised that counter representations would be invited over an eight week period, in accordance with the Statement for Community Involvement.

            The Committee noted:

·        the update in relation to the responses which had been received over the twelve week consultation between August and November 2018; and

·        the proposed next steps in relation to the ongoing consultation for the draft Plan Strategy.

            (Mr. R. Cregan, Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director of Finance and Resources, attended in connection with this item)

            The Strategic Director of Finance and Resources outlined to the Committee that, the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee had, at its meeting on 14th December, 2018, agreed the cash limit for the Planning Committee for 2019/2020, which, in conjunction with the other Committees’ cash limits and capital financing budget, required a district rate increase of 1.98%.

            The Committee:

1.      agreed that the decision would not be subject to call-in as it would cause an unreasonable delay which would be prejudicial to the Council’s and the public’s interests in striking the rate by the legislative deadline of 15th February, 2019;

2.      agreed a cash limit for the Planning Committee for 2019/2020 of £1,609,861 and the individual service limits detailed within the report; and

3.      noted the next steps in the rate setting process, as detailed within the report.

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

·        LA04/2018/1998/F - Demolition of existing building and erection of a new purpose-built facility including retention of existing chimney at Ardoyne Youth Club, Old Beltex Mill, Flax Street

            (Councillors Armitage, Campbell and Canavan took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 11th December, 2018, when it had originally been considered.)

            The Development Engagement Manager reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 11th December, it had granted approval to applications LA04/2018/0040/F, LA04/2018/0047/DCA and LA04/2018/0048/LBC.

            The Committee was advised that, after the meeting of 11th December, an issue had been raised in relation to the stated position of the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) with regards to the above mentioned applications.

            The City Solicitor, in accordance with Section 15 of the Committee’s Operating Protocol, had agreed to refer the above mentioned applications back to the Committee.

            The Development Engagement Manager clarified to the Committee that a statement within the case officer’s report of 11th December, in addition to advice from officers at that meeting, had been based on information provided by the agent for the application.

            He advised the Committee that, as it had approved the applications at its previous meeting, consideration should focus on the issues raised within the addendum report.  He explained that, while the HSCB’s position was a relevant contextual consideration, it was not considered to hold determining weight in the planning process.  The Members were advised that, as set out in detail in the report, the proposals were considered acceptable in land-use planning terms and would bring about substantial community benefits.  He added that it was not for the Planning Authority to pre-empt how public health policy was applied and that issues relating to funding, and the HSCB’s position on the relocation of GP surgeries, were subject to separate processes outside planning.  As such, he advised the Committee that the officers’ recommendation to approve the applications remained.

            In relation to how the Council had verified what HSCB’s position was, the Development Engagement Manager drew the Committee’s attention to a letter which had been circulated to Members as a late item, which had been received from the Health and Social Care Board earlier that day.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Attwood.  He advised the Committee that he was a member of the Belfast Local Commissioning Group and that, after the Planning Committee’s meeting of 11th December, he had raised concerns with the City Solicitor relating to the HSCB’s position on the applications for the King’s Hall site.  He explained to the Committee that, in terms of openness and transparency, it was important that the Committee had the full information in order to make its decision. 

            He advised the Committee that:

·        the case officer’s report, in addition to comments made by officers at the meeting, stated that the HSCB had “confirmed its support (for the proposals) subject to funding being available”;

·        that information had been submitted by the applicant’s agent, Turley, and had not been independently verified with the HSCB;

·        he believed that statement to be incorrect and had since sought clarification from the HSCB;

·        the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

            (Councillors Armitage, Campbell and Canavan took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 11th December, 2018, when it had originally been considered.)

            The case officer reminded the Committee that it had considered the application at its meeting on 11th December, 2018, when it had agreed to defer consideration so that the Committee could undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site.

            She pointed out that, as laid out in the Late Items pack, the agent had submitted a briefing note on the development which included a parking survey and 3D visuals but that no new information had been included.

            The Committee was reminded of the key aspects of the application.

            The case officer explained that two additional objections, from the same objector, had been received in relation to the application following the 11th December meeting.  The Committee was advised that the objections related to parking concerns and she outlined to the Committee that the issues had been addressed within her report.

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

(Councillor Lyons left the room during this application)

            The case officer reminded the Committee that it had agreed to defer consideration of the application at its meeting on 11th December, 2018, so that the Committee could undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site. 

            She outlined the principal aspects of the application to the Committee.  She explained that the site was within the development limits in both the extant and draft plans, was on unzoned land and was within the curtilage of an existing commercial use.

            The Committee was advised that Environmental Health had concluded that concerns relating to the potential noise, nuisance and disturbance could be dealt with through the attachment of conditions.  The case officer outlined that the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads had stated that it was content with the application

            She drew to the Committee’s attention the Late Items Pack, outlining that 129 letters of support for the application had been received since the report had been published.  She pointed out that the Planning Service had received seven further objections since the publication of the report, amounting to 53 written objections against the application.  No new information had been submitted from the applicant.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor McReynolds.  He outlined to the Committee a number of concerns he had with the application, principally:

·        the impact of an increased number of vehicles using the Sydenham Bypass and Garnerville Road;

·        the impact of increased congestion at the Tesco site, particularly with the removal of 96 car parking spaces to facilitate the restaurant;

·        there were a number of ongoing developments in the surrounding area, e.g. the proposed Park & Ride at Tillysburn and proposed works at the Blanchflower Stadium;

·        ongoing anti-social behaviour at the Tesco site;

·        he felt the time that the Committee undertook its site visit, on the first Wednesday after Christmas, was not representative of the issues at the site;

·        the proximity of the application to a nearby primary school; and

·        the proximity of the application to neighbouring houses.

            The Committee then received representation from Mr. J. King, Mr. I. Wilkinson and Mr. C. Lyttle MLA, who were objecting to the application.

            They outlined a number of concerns to the Committee for its consideration, including:

·        residents who lived close to the Tesco Knocknagoney Road site already experienced anti-social behaviour (ASB) from young people congregating in the car park, and that the addition of a McDonald’s restaurant and drive-thru would only exacerbate those issues;

·        residents had only recently been advised to report issues relating to ASB to the Council’s Noise control section and to the PSNI in order that the occurrences could be logged and monitored, as residents had previously only reported the issues directly to Tesco;

·        concerns regarding blurred lines of responsibility between the companies if, for example, McDonalds customers were to park within the Tesco car park after it closed at 6pm on a Sunday;

·        queried how the Transport Assessment car park usage survey stated that the approval of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12c

            (Councillor Campbell declared an interest in the item, in that she had formed an opinion on the application in advance of the consideration by the Committee, and she left the room for the duration of the discussion)

            The case officer reminded the Committee that it had agreed to defer consideration of the application at its meeting on 11th December, 2018, so that the Committee could undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site.  She explained that the site visit had taken place on 9th January.

            She provided the Committee with an overview of the principal aspects of the application and explained that it was considered an improvement on the previous scheme and, on balance, it was considered acceptable within the policies of the development plan and prevailing regional planning policy.

            She added that one of the conditions, if approved, would be to secure open space on the site.

            The Committee was advised that three objections had been received, two of which were from the same person.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Murphy.  He welcomed the application but highlighted that there had been significant development within the area over the past few years and that there was only one road in which to enter and leave the development, which had led to a high volume of traffic.  He requested that the Committee work with the Department for Infrastructure on future large housing schemes to ensure that similar developments did not have a negative impact on the traffic levels.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. S. McKee, agent acting for the application.  He clarified that the application sought a reduced number of units at the site, from an original approval of 46 down to 38 dwellings. 

            In response to a number of Members’ questions, the case officer clarified to the Members that the traffic issues which had been raised would be something for the Committee to consider within the context of the Local Development Plan, and not in relation to individual planning applications.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control assured the Committee that the Planning Service was working closely with DfI Roads, who were producing the Metropolitan Transport Plan for the wider Belfast area, and that it would be going out for consultation later in the year.

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

(The Committee adjourned for 10 minutes at this point)

(Councillor Campbell returned to the room at this point)

(Councillor Carson left the room at this point)

            The case officer provided the Committee with the detail of the application.

            He reminded the Members that planning permission had been refused for a previous application on this site.  He explained that the new application was significantly better in comparison with the previous proposal, in terms of scale and massing.  The Committee was advised that the demolition of existing buildings 30-44 Bradbury Place, which were not listed nor were in a Conservation Area or Area of Townscape Character, was considered acceptable in principle.

            The case officer advised the Committee that HED had no objections and that four representations had been received objecting on the basis of loss of light to offices, access issues for neighbouring offices, impact on the character of the area, traffic issues and the impact on businesses which occupied the buildings which were proposed to be demolished.

            He advised the Committee that 308 letters of support had been received for the application, citing the positive impact the proposal would have in terms of economic benefits and the need for student accommodation close to Queen’s University.

            The Committee approved the application subject to conditions and, in accordance with Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control, in conjunction with the City Solicitor, to enter into discussions with the applicant to explore the scope of any planning agreements which might be realised at the site. The Committee also delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

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

            The case officer explained the principal aspects of the application to the Committee, and pointed out that the proposal related to Phase 2 of a two-part operation to replace the external cladding panels on the building. 

            He drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items Report Pack, where a minor revision to the originally submitted drawing had been received.  The Committee noted the change in the case officer’s presentation.

            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.

            The case officer outlined the details of the application to the Committee.

            She explained that the site was located along the arterial route of the Holywood Road and would fulfil the main objectives of Draft BMAP and the SPPS in supporting the regeneration of the route and the provision of much needed social housing in a sustainable location.

            The case officer explained that the proposal was considered to comply with the SPPS, BUAP, Draft BMAP, PPS3, PPS7, PPS12 and PPS15.

            The Members were advised that Transport NI, DAERA, Rivers Agency and Environmental Health had been consulted and had offered no objections.  She explained that NI Water’s response remained outstanding but that it was considered that it raised no issues of principle.

            She advised the Committee that one letter of objection had been received and that the issues raised had been addressed within 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 delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

            The case officer outlined the application for a change of use from a single occupancy dwelling to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).

            She clarified to the Members that policy HMO 5 was applicable in this case, given that the area was outside a designated HMO Development Node or Policy Area. 

            The Committee was advised that, as there were 122 domestic properties on the 600m section of Alexandra Park Avenue, the policy would allow for the registration of 12 HMOs before the 10% threshold would be exceeded.  She explained that there was only 1 HMO in the section currently, and that the application was therefore acceptable.

            The case officer explained that thirty objections had been received in relation to the application and she outlined the Planning Service’s response to the concerns which had been raised.

            The case officer confirmed to the Committee that the proposal complied with Policy HMO 6 in that the criteria were either met or were not relevant as the property was not in an HMO Policy Area.

            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 application for a change of use from a single occupancy dwelling to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).

            As with the previous application, she clarified to the Members that policy HMO 5 was applicable in this case, given that the area was outside a designated HMO Development Node or Policy Area.  The Committee was advised that, under that Policy, 11 HMOs could be registered on that 600m of Alexandra Park Avenue before the 10% threshold would be exceeded and that only 1 HMO was currently registered.

            The Committee noted that the previous application was in the same street and that the number of HMOs was still below the 10% limit.

            The case officer explained that thirty objections had been received in relation to the application and she outlined the Planning Service’s response to the concerns which had been raised.

            The case officer confirmed to the Committee that the proposal complied with Policy HMO 6 in that the criteria were either met or were not relevant as the property was not in an HMO Policy Area.

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

            (Councillor Hutchinson declared an interest in this application, in that one of the persons involved with the application worked at the organisation which he managed, but he had reserved judgement on the application and so did not leave the room)

            The Committee was apprised of the principal aspects of the application, which included a new Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), fencing, a play area, floodlighting and changes to the level of grass areas to allow for level play surfaces.

            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.