Agenda and minutes

No apologies were reported.

            The minutes of the Pre-Determination Hearing and of the meeting of 9th April were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29th April, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

Councillor Hussey declared an interest in Item 8b, LA04/2018/2470/O, Mixed use regeneration and development and refurbishment of existing listed Butchers building with new fixed use buildings at Winetavern Street, Gresham Street and North Street, in that he had taken part in a site visit to the area, as a Member of the City Growth and Regeneration Committee, but he confirmed that he had not made any predetermination in relation to the proposed development and so he remained in the room.

            Councillor Groogan declared an interest in item 8m, LA04/2019/0417/F, Purpose built managed student accommodation with 253 beds at Botanic Link, in that she had attended a Pre-Application Discussion (PAD) on behalf of her employer and had made comments at the meeting.  She therefore left the meeting for the duration of the item.

            The Committee agreed:

1.      to hold a Special meeting on Tuesday, 2nd July at 5p.m.; and

2.      that the Planning Committee would meet, at 5p.m., on the following dates from August to December,2019

·        Tuesday, 13th August;

·        Thursday, 15th August (if required);

·        Tuesday, 17th September;

·        Thursday, 19th September (if required);

·        Tuesday, 15th October;

·        Thursday, 17th October (if required);

·        Tuesday, 12th November;

·        Thursday, 14th November (if required);

·        Tuesday, 10th December; and

·        Thursday, 12th December (if required).

            It was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 31st May in respect of the following planning application LA04/2018/0811/F – Mixed use development comprising offices, residential apartments (including affordable), hotel and serviced apartments, retail and professional services, community and cultural, leisure uses, cafes, bars, restaurants, with associated car parking, circulation and servicing arrangements; public realm works, landscaping, replacement of existing pedestrian bridge fixed to railway bridge and associated access works to Short Strand and Bridge End with other infrastructural works, and demolition of existing structures including boundary walls on lands at former Sirocco Works Short Strand and adjacent to Bridge End and the River Lagan.

            The Committee was apprised of correspondence which had been received relating to:

1.      An extinguishment of a Public Right of Way Order No. 1 at lands at Gilnahirk Road;

2.      A Vesting Order which had become operational at land at former Hannahstown Hill/Glen Road; and

3.      The proposed abandonment of:

·        lands at Linen Mill Grove, Edenderry, under the Roads (NI) Order 1993, in order to facilitate access to a new housing development;

·        part of the footpath on the Ormeau Road in order to rectify a mapping discrepancy and facilitate the disposal of the land, part of which had previously been abandoned in 2017 under MD2/Z/03/1015;

·        part of the road at Seymour Row, Belfast in order to rectify title to the area and incorporate the land into the existing car park; and

·        part of the land/footpath passing under the Station Street Flyover in order to facilitate a multi-agency redevelopment scheme for the area.

            The Committee noted the correspondence.

            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 2nd April and 3rd June, 2019.

            (Mr. K. Sutherland, Planning Manager (Policy), and Mr. D. O’Kane, Principal Planning Officer, attended in connection with this item).

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0       Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1         The purpose of this report is to provide members with an update on:

·        Consultation on the draft Plan Strategy (dPS) and the next stage in the Local Development Plan (LDP) process;

·        Preparation of the Council’s Housing Land Availability Report for the 2018/19 monitoring period and its accompanying online map portal; and

·        Additional research commissioned as part of the LDP evidence base.

2.0         Recommendations

2.1         The Committee is asked to note the updates.

3.0         Background

3.1         The draft Plan Strategy (dPS) is the first of two documents that will comprise the new Local Development Plan (LDP).  The dPS is more strategic at this stage (in line with government guidance) setting out an over-arching strategy and general operational policies that will apply across the city.  The dPS is ambitious, striving through a plan led approach to achieve the thriving socially inclusive city, reflecting the objectives at the heart of the Belfast Agenda.  It will also realise the Regional Development Strategy’s (RDS 2035) ambition for Belfast as the regional economic driver.

3.2         The dPS was published last Autumn for a formal consultation that closed on 15th November 2018.  A further eight week consultation period on the submissions received last Autumn, to allow for counter-representations, closed on 26th April 2019. This report therefore provides an update on the outcome of this counter-representation process and outlines the next stage in the LDP process.

3.3         As part of the new statutory responsibilities the Council produces the Housing Land Availability Summary Report annually to inform the plan process.  The latest report for 2018/19 (available on modern.gov) outlines the position in respect of housing development and provides a snapshot of the amount of land available for new residential development at the 1st April 2019. This regular monitoring is an important element of the evidence base for the preparation of the LDP and will be supported by an online map portal (publicly available) showing the status of all existing housing monitor sites. The web based portal will seek to illustrate some of the key information contained within the report in a map based form.

3.4         Alongside the regular housing monitor and other publications, additional research has also been commenced to help broaden the LDP’s evidence base and inform the Council’s response to the draft Plan Strategy consultations.  This includes research to consider the potential impact of the LDP’s proposed policies on the residential property development sector and broader market areas and the preparation of technical responses to consultation comments submitted in relation to the Housing Growth Options Report.

4.0         Main Issues

              Consultation on the dPS and next stage in the LDP process

4.1         The 109 representations received in response to the dPS consultation were published on the Council’s website on 1st March 2019, with an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

            The Committee noted that the following three items (8d, e and f) had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·        LA04/2019/0081/F - 12 apartments (social/affordable housing units comprising 3No. one bed & 9No. two bed) with provision of community pocket park, car parking, landscaping and all associated site and access works, lands at former Maple Leaf Club, 41-43 Park Avenue;

·        LA04/2019/0082/F - Section 54 application to remove condition 2 of Z/2010/0434/F. The condition reads as follows, "No part of the residential development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the social club herby approved is constructed and operational in accordance with the approved plans."; and

·        LA04/2019/0083/F - Section 54 application to remove condition 2 of LA04/2015/0075/F - "No part of the residential development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the social club hereby approved is constructed and operational on lands at former Maple Leaf Club, 41-43 Park Avenue.

            The Planning Manager (Development Management) advised that the Planning Committee had previously undertaken a visit to the site and had subsequently considered the two applications, where it had agreed with the officers recommendations to approve both at its meeting on 15th May, 2018.  However, he explained that, following pre-action correspondence for a Judicial Review of the decisions for failure to specifically cite Planning Policies BH14 and BH10 of PPS6 in the report, the Council had since agreed to have those decisions quashed.

            He provided the Committee with the detail of the applications.

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, where Ulster Architectural Heritage (UAH) had submitted further objections to the application.  The Planning Manager highlighted to the Committee the Planning Department’s response to each of the points raised by UAH.

            The Committee was advised of the Conservation Assessment Report which had been submitted with the application, the independent urban design advice which had been commissioned by the Council, and the views of the Conservation Officers. 

            In relation to criteria (a) and (b) under paragraph 6.5 of PPS6, the Planning Manager pointed out that the Conservation Assessment Report and both Conservation officers’ assessments had referred to the fact that the buildings had lost a significant extent of their original fabric/features including chimneys, roof materials, original window frames, with the ground floors having been reorganised, including having had shopfronts installed.  He explained that, therefore, it was considered that there were no physical features present that contributed to significant character.

            The Committee was also advised that the Historic Environment Division (HED) Built Heritage had advised that the site and buildings were not listed at the time of its heritage survey in 2012-2013, that they were not considered to be of sufficient architectural and/or historical interest to merit a full survey and that it would not be revisiting that decision.

            The Planning Manager advised the Members that the buildings were surrounded by larger modern buildings, were subject to limited views within the Conservation Area save from within Upper Queen Street and Wellington Street.  He stated that the visual influence/impact of the existing building would be limited in terms of the Conservation Area as a whole as stipulated in PPS6.

            In relation to the proposal, the Committee was apprised of the primary considerations, which were set out in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland and of PPS6 and were considered acceptable in terms of scale, form and massing.

            The Committee noted that no objections had been received from any consultees including Transport NI, Environmental Health, DAERA or HED.

            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.

            (Cllr Hussey declared an interest in this item, in that he had taken part in a site visit to the area as a Member of the City Growth and Regeneration Committee, but he clarified that he had not made any predetermination in relation to the proposed development and so he remained in the room)

            The Case officer outlined the principal aspects of the major application to the Committee.

            He explained that the application sought outline permission for a mixed use regeneration and development of a surface level car park, the refurbishment of an existing listed Butchers building, and the erection of new fixed use buildings with heights varying between three and nine storeys.

            The Members were advised of the key issues which had been used in the assessment of the proposed development, which included, amongst others, the principle of development, the principle of proposed uses, impact on built heritage, scale, massing, design, traffic and parking and drainage and flooding.

            The case officer explained that the site lay within the northern part of the city centre, which was poorly defined in terms of land use and built form.  He advised the Committee that it was zoned as an opportunity site in the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) and that the proposal would renovate a listed three-storey building, develop an surface level carpark with a piece of high quality architecture which drew upon the industrial heritage of the area, creating a well-defined public space and providing a landmark building on one of the main arterial routes into the city centre.

            The case officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items Pack, where he highlighted that a consultation response had been received from the City Regeneration and Development Team.  He outlined the Planning Department’s response to the issues raised.

            He outlined that DfI Roads, Rivers Agency, Belfast City Airport, and Building Control had no objections to the proposals, and that no third party representations had been received.  The Members noted that further information had been requested from Environmental Health and the DAERA Waste Management Unit.

            The Committee was advised that an objection had been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED).  One of its primary concerns was that it felt that the link block extension to the listed building was too narrow.  The case officer explained that a response from HED was outstanding in relation to the most recent plans but that it was likely that its objections remained.  He explained, therefore, that given the objection by a statutory consultee, if the Committee was to grant approval to the application, it would be referred to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI).

            The Committee was advised that Mr. T. Stokes, Mr. A. Stewart and Mr. S. Tyler were in attendance, representing the agent/applicant, and they were welcomed to the meeting by the Chairperson.

            Mr. Stokes requested that the Committee support the applications due to the undernoted reasons:

·        they had undertaken a significant community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11b

            The Case officer presented to the Committee the principal aspects of an application for the change of use from a parish hall to a licensed social club.

            She outlined the key issues which had been considered in the assessment of the application, including the principle of the proposed development and change of use, the design, scale and massing, the noise impact assessment and impact on residential amenity, amongst others.  She clarified to the Members that licensing was not within the remit of the Planning authority.

            The Case officer advised the Committee that Environmental Health had recommended a number of conditions in response to the Noise Impact Assessment and further information provided by the applicant.  She outlined that the Planning Department’s consideration of those conditions was outlined within the report.

            The Members were advised that the principle of the proposed use was considered unacceptable and inconsistent with the existing residential area and, if permitted, would result in a detrimental impact to the residential amenity of the adjacent properties.  The Committee was also advised that the separation distances between the parish hall and the existing neighbouring properties were insufficient to adequately allow the use of the hall as a social club without detrimental impact.

            The Committee was advised that 40 objections had been received from local residents, raising concerns in respect of the impact of the proposal on residential amenity by way of nose, disturbance and general nuisance.

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, where a letter of support had been received from the intended occupier.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. G. McLarnon and Dr. E. Barrett to the meeting, who were objecting to the application.  Together, they stated that:

·        there were a number of houses very close to the parish hall and that it would be unsuitable if it were to become a social club, with noise late at night;

·        there was inadequate space around the footprint of the building;

·        there was only one shared entrance; and

·        there would be significant noise disturbances from deliveries and from patrons loitering and smoking outside of the building.

            The Committee agreed to refuse the application, with authority delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the wording of the final reasons for refusal.

            The Committee was apprised of the details of the application for 48 terraced dwellings and 1 detached dwelling, with each dwelling to have a car parking space.

            The case officer provided the Members with the key issues in the assessment of the application, including, amongst others, the principle of development and use, height, scale, massing, layout and design and the provision of amenity space.

            She explained to the Committee that the adopted Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 had designated the site as unzoned white land, while the Draft BMAP 2015, which was ultimately quashed, and BMAP 2004 had designated the site as zoned housing land.

            The Members were advised that the proposed density was in keeping with the existing established residential area, the layout was deemed acceptable in that the proposal provided private garden areas to all 49 dwellings and the provision of amenity space within the development was also considered acceptable.

            The Committee was advised that no representations had been received and that no objections had been received from consultees, subject to conditions.

            In response to Members’ questions regarding the separation distances between dwellings, the case officer confirmed that they were deemed acceptable and were similar to the surrounding houses.           

            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 Committee adjourned for a ten minute break at this point)

            The case officer detailed the principal aspects of the report.

            She highlighted to the Committee that the applicant was in receipt of £3.5million from the Belfast Investment Fund (BIF) from the Council, and that the Council was delivering the project.

            The Committee noted that the site was a vacant former Primary School, which was a Grade B1 listed building and was identified on the Built Heritage at Risk Northern Ireland register.

            The Members were advised of the key issues in the assessment of the proposed development, which included, amongst others, the proposed design, layout, scale and massing, the impact on a listed building, impact on the character of an area and the impact on traffic and parking provision.

            The case officer advised the Members that no objections had been received and that the Historic Environment Division (HED), following the submission of amendments and subject to conditions, had no objections.

            The Committee granted approval to the application and the Listed Building Consent, 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 explained the principal aspects of the application to the Committee.

            She highlighted to the Members that it was a reserved matters application and that the principle of a dwelling on the site had already been established under the outline permission LA04/2017/1208/O in September 2017 and that the current application was to deal solely with the conditions attached to that approval.

            The Members were advised that the outline permission included conditions to specify the siting of the proposed dwelling, the ridge height of the dwelling, to be no higher than that of the neighbouring properties at Nos. 9 and 11 Waterloo Park North, and that the boundary hedging was to be retained.  The case officer confirmed to the Committee that the Reserved Matters application complied with those conditions.

            The Committee was advised that 23 objections had been received.  The case officer explained that no objections had been received from consultees.

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, where a further objection had been received.  The case officer explained that the Planning Department’s responses to the issues raised were contained in the report.

            The Committee was advised that two objectors to the application, Mr. L. Quinn and Ms. M Magill, were in attendance and they were welcomed to the meeting.

They raised a number of points in objection to the application, including:

·        the affect that the proposals would have on the value of their properties;

·        the impact that the proposal would have on them and their properties in relation to issues regarding the dormer windows in the attic and the altered roof design; and

·        a request that the Committee would defer consideration in order to undertake a site visit.

            The Committee was advised that Mr. S. Houston, the agent for the application, was in attendance and he was welcomed to the meeting.

            Mr Houston explained that the Reserved Matters application complied with the conditions and that the proposed design was in keeping with the surrounding area.

Proposal

            Moved by Alderman Rodgers

            Seconded by Councillor Nicholl and

      Resolved – that the Committee agrees 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.

            The Committee was apprised of the principal aspects of the application for fourteen apartments over four storeys, with four and half storeys to the front elevation.

            The case officer advised the Committee that the site had been vacant for almost a decade.  She explained that the site was unzoned white land in the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 and that it was partly unzoned white land and partly zoned as a shopping and commercial area on an Arterial Route in the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.

            The Members were advised of the key issues in the assessment of the proposed development, which included, amongst others, the principle of development, height, scale, massing, layout and design, parking provision and access and the impact on the character of the area.

            The case officer explained that the proposed design was larger in scale than some of the surrounding buildings but that the arterial frontage had changed and was transitioning from the former domestic scale buildings to more commercial proportions and scale.  She added that the detailing proposed in the design would assist in integrating the development with the smaller scale residential properties to the rear.

            The Committee was advised that 35 representations had been received, citing design, scale and massing, dominance, and parking provision.  The case officer advised the Members that the design had been amended to address a number of the concerns and that the Planning Service had only received three objections to the latest proposals.

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, where the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) had indicated that it was content with the proposed development.

            The Committee noted that Environmental Health, Rivers Agency, NI Water, Historic Environment Division, transport NI and the Council’s Urban Design officer had no objection to the proposals subject to the conditions as outlined 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 explained the principal aspects of the application which included the reconfiguration of apartments from a Reserved Matters application, LA04/2016/2291/RM, to provide an increase to twelve apartments from the previously approved eight.

            She explained to the Members that the principle of residential use at the location had already been established.

            The Committee was advised that Environmental Health, DfI Roads, NI Water, Rivers Agency and NIEA had no objections. 

            The case officer added that three representations had been received, raising concerns with an increase in density, parking, privacy of residents and concerns on infrastructure.  She explained that the issues had been dealt with within her report.

            The case officer explained that the overall design would remain in keeping with its surrounding context and it was considered that the proposed design and architectural treatment were acceptable and in line with policy requirements.

            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 apprised the Committee of the major application for the restoration and refurbishment of a Category B1 Listed Building, Templemore Baths, and for an extension on the adjacent vacant site.

            He highlighted to the Members that Belfast City Council was the applicant.

            The Committee was advised that the baths were located within the Templemore Avenue Area of Townscape Character in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) and that it was the only surviving baths in the UK still being used for its original purpose. 

            The case officer outlined to the Members that all consultees were content with the proposals subject to conditions as detailed within the report. 

            A Member requested clarity on the historic steps and tiles within the baths.  The case officer clarified to the Committee that these would be preserved.  He explained that the Historic Environment Division (HED) had advised that they were content that the proposals were compliant with planning policy. 

            The Members were advised that no third party objections had been received.

            The Committee granted approval to the application and to the Listed Building Consent, 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 Groogan declared an interest in this item and left the meeting for the duration of the item.)

            The Case officer provided the Committee with the principal aspects of the application which proposed the construction of a four storey building on the raised platform above the railway line between University Road and Botanic Avenue.

            She outlined the key issues which had been considered during assessment of the proposals which included the principle of Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation (PBMSA) at the location, compliance with the HMO subject Plan and PBMSA Guidance Document, design, scale, massing and layout and impact on the conservation area and listed buildings.

            The Case officer explained that the proposal was a compatible land use which did not conflict with relevant policy and other material considerations.

            The Committee was advised that consultation had been undertaken with DfI Roads Service, Historic Environment (HED), NI Water, Environmental health, NI Transport Holding Company (NITHC), Rivers Agency, Building Control and the Urban Design and Conservation officers.

            The Case officer explained that HED had raised one concern regarding the University Avenue elevation however it had informally advised that the amended plans had addressed their concerns.

            She informed the Committee that NITHC had raised a number of stipulations and that officers considered them to be civil matters between two landowners and that they could be addressed as informatives.

            The Committee was advised that all other consultees had responded with no objections, subject to conditions and informatives.

            The Case officer explained that a robust Pre-Application Discussion (PAD) for the application had taken place, where the design and other relevant maters had been addressed in detail.

            As the proposal was located within the Queens Conservation Area, was adjacent to two Areas of Townscape Character and was in the close proximity of a number of listed buildings, the Committee was shown a number of computer generated images demonstrating the view of the proposed development from various key viewpoints.

            The Committee was advised that a Section 76 Planning Agreement had been submitted by the developer and which was under consideration by the Council’s Legal Services section.

            The Case officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items Pack, where responses from the City Regeneration and Development Team and HED had been received.  She also advised that five letters of representation had not been considered before publication of the Committee report and that the issued raised therein had either already been considered in the report or were civil matters.  The Members also noted that the landscape plans had been amended to rectify a discrepancy in relation to proposed planting on the right of way.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Gordon and Mr. A. Best, representing the applicant/agent, to the meeting.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding the balconies on the adjoining Bingo Hall on Botanic Avenue potentially causing an overlooking issue to the proposed development, Mr. Best advised the Committee that the balconies were originally installed for patrons  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11j

            The case officer provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site of Ulidia Resource Centre and the erection of a new seven classroom, two storey Irish Medium school to include parking facilities, landscaping and open space.

            She outlined that the key issues in the assessment of the application were the principle of a school at the location, the visual impact of the proposed redevelopment, the impact on amenity/character of the area, the impact on transport and other infrastructure and flood risk.

            The Members were advised that the principle of a school on the site was acceptable given that the existing buildings were previously used as a primary school.  The case officer also explained that the design, scale and massing were acceptable.

            The Committee was advised that DfI Roads, Environmental Health, NI Water and Rivers Agency had been consulted on the proposed development and had no objections, subject to conditions and informatives.

            The case officer explained that two objections had been received from nearby residents citing concerns relating to traffic, access, whether there was a need for another primary school, appropriateness of the proposal within a residential context, asbestos contamination and noise pollution.  She explained the Planning Department’s response to the concerns were addressed within the report.

            She drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items Report and explained that, due to a clerical error, incorrect neighbour notifications had been included within the original 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.