Agenda and minutes

No apologies were reported.

            The minutes of the meetings of 11th and 13th June were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 1st July, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            No declarations of interest were recorded.

            It was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit, on 20th June, in respect of the following planning application LA04/2018/1761/RM - Site for new dwelling and garage to the rear of 598 Antrim Road.

            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 and 24th June, 2019.

            (The Planning Manager (Policy) attended in connection with the following two items)

            The Committee was advised that, under Article 80 (3) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011, the Historic Environment Division (HED) was required to consult with the Council before placing any building on the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.  The Planning Manager (Policy) explained that, should the Department for Communities decide to list a property, it placed certain responsibilities on the owner, for example, to maintain it in a way appropriate to its character and that it cannot be altered or demolished without prior approval.

            The Members noted that correspondence had been received from HED regarding the proposed listing of:

·        73 University Street, BT7 1HB as a B2 class listing; and

·        Euston Street Primary School, BT6 9AG as a B1 class listing.

            The Committee agreed to support the listing of the two properties as outlined.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0      Purpose of Report and Summary of Main Issues

1.1      To update Members on progress with the new Belfast Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan (GBIP) and to note its publication in draft form for public consultation.

1.2       The Council agreed the draft GBIP for consultation in June 2018. The GBIP is a high level plan that recognises the many functions, including for health, biodiversity and environmental resilience, of our green areas and water features. It represents an over-arching strategy that will guide more detailed strategies and action plans over time. These include the new Open Spaces Strategy (OSS), which was prepared in tandem with it. A draft OSS was agreed for public consultation by the Council in April 2019.

1.3       Having regard to the many synergies between the GBIP and the OSS, both draft documents were published together for consultation purposes for a 12 week period from 17 June 2019. A copy of the draft GBIP is attached at Appendix 1.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       It is recommended that the Committee:

·        notes the publication of the draft GBIP alongside the draft OSS for public consultation.

3.0       Main Report

3.1       Belfast City Council appointed AECOM to help prepare a Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan (GBIP) in tandem with the preparation of a new Open Spaces Strategy (OSS) for the city. The concept of a GBIP was included in the Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP) Preferred Options Paper (POP) and there was wide support for such an approach. This concept has also been incorporated in to the LDP Draft Plan Strategy, which is intended to be submitted for Independent Examination shortly. The data collected and used to develop the GBIP and OSS forms part of the evidence base for the LDP.

3.2       The GBIP acknowledges the benefits and multi-functionality of green and blue infrastructure assets across the City. Green assets include parks, playing fields, amenity open space, trees, gardens and countryside. Blue assets include rivers, water bodies and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). The overall network of these assets brings a wide range of benefits, including for health & wellbeing, biodiversity and environmental resilience. In this respect, the GBIP will also help to secure many of the objectives in the Belfast Agenda, including through greater permeability, accessibility and the potential for improved community relations

3.3       The draft GBIP was agreed by the Council for public consultation purposes in June 2018.  The draft OSS was agreed by the Council in April 2019.  In view of the synergies between the GBIP and the OSS, both draft documents are being consulted on together in a joint approach by Planning Service and City and Neighbourhood Services Department. This timeframe also avoids any overlap with the substantial public consultation phase on the LDP Draft Plan Strategy, which lasted from August 2018 to April 2019. 

3.4       The 12 week public consultation period for both documents commenced on 17 June 2019 and will run until 6 September. There was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

            The Case officer reminded the Committee that it had agreed, at its meeting on 11th June, after having considered the case officer’s report on the application, to defer consideration in order to undertake a site visit.  She advised the Members that the site visit had taken place on 20th June.

            The Committee was apprised of the addendum report which provided information on further objections which had been received in relation to the application.

            The case officer highlighted to the Members that, as it was a reserved matters application, 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.  She explained that these included issues relating to building materials used, access and landscaping.

            The separation distances were provided to the Members of the Committee.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, whereby further correspondence had been received from an objector.  The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the points raised.

            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.

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

            The Committee was advised that the application sought to revise a previously approved application, Z/2014/1774/F, to include a new 510 seat Football Stand and Clubhouse behind the goals at the west of the site, with a new Standing Terrace proposed along the side of the pitch with two toilet blocks also located within the site.  The Members were advised that the proposal included the removal of the existing terrace standing area.

            The case officer explained that the extant approval was for a new clubhouse and tiered seating area, a 200 seat stand, alteration to existing standing area, a new 3G surface to existing pitches including floodlights, dugouts, fencing, security tower, turnstiles, toilet blocks and associated ground works.

            She advised the Committee that the main issues for assessment in the proposed development included the impact on residential amenity, on access and parking, on open/recreational space and on natural heritage.

            The Members were advised that sixteen objections had been received, raising issues around a number of technical matters around the planning fee, the Council’s interest in the application, neighbour notification, parking issues, noise/nuisance and whether it should be treated as a “Major application”.

            The case officer highlighted to the Members that the site was not zoned or designated in the Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) and that it was designated as a local landscape policy area with regard to local amenity importance and are of local nature conservation interest in the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (dBMAP).

            She explained that the proposal did not result in the loss of existing open space and therefore did not conflict with Policy OS1 of PPS8.  The Committee was also advised that the proposal also complied with the policy test of Policy OS4 of PPS8 in respect of Intensive Sports Facilities in relation to residential amenity, built/natural heritage, archaeology, design, access/mobility and roads issues, including access and parking.  She added that there were also no issues with drainage or contamination.

            The Committee was advised that the application sought to provide 216 parking spaces on site.  She explained that an updated Transport Assessment Form (TAF) had been submitted and the Department for Infrastructure had been consulted further.  The case officer advised that DfI Roads had not responded but, if they did submit an objection, the application would be brought back to the Committee.

            The case officer explained that the current proposal had a spectator capacity for 509 visitors lower than the existing development, and 703 lower than the extant approval.  She explained that Environmental Health had requested a Noise Impact Assessment which had concluded that there would be a low impact at residential premises.  The Committee noted that they had no objections subject to conditions relating to the hours of operation.

            She explained to the Committee that, in accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011, there were no neighbours identified to be notified of the application.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9c

            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.

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

            The case officer detailed the principal aspects of the Major application to the Members.

            The Committee was advised that the key issues in the assessment of the proposal included the principle of the proposal at the location, demolition and impact on the conservation area, layout, scale, form and massing, impact on transport, flooding, drainage and contamination.

            The Case officer explained to the Members that internal space standards had been met.  He added that communal amenity space would be provided in the development in the form of a roof garden. 

            He advised the Members that no car parking spaces would be provided but that, as part of a Section 76 Agreement, cycle spaces and travel cards would be made available to residents.

            He added that no objections had been received and that the Department for Infrastructure had no objections, subject to conditions.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, where the case officer advised that a consultation response had been received from NI Water with no objections.

            In response to a Member’s question relating to the height of the replacement building, which would be an increase of three storeys in height, the case officer explained that officers were content with the scale and massing of the proposed development and that other surrounding buildings were taller.  During discussion, he also explained that the materials which were proposed were of a high quality and that there was an eclectic mix in the surrounding area.

            The Case officer’s recommendations were then put to the Committee, namely:

      “That planning permission and demolition consent be granted, subject to conditions, and that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions, to enter into a Section 76 planning agreement, to resolve outstanding consultee issues and to the notification of the Department for Infrastructure.”

            On a vote by show of hands, eleven Members voted for the proposal and two against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee was apprised of the details of the application for the demolition of an existing pair of semi-detached dwellings and the erection of 3 dwellings and 9 apartments.

            The Case officer explained that the site was unzoned whiteland within the development limits of Belfast as designated in the Belfast urban Area Plan (BUAP) and in Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (dBMAP).  She outlined that the proposal would fulfil the main objectives of Draft BMAP and the SPPS through the provision of housing in a sustainable location.

            She outlined to the Members that DAERA and NI Water had offered no objections to the proposal.  She explained that BCC Environmental health and Tree Officers had requested additional information, which could be dealt with through appropriate conditions.  The Committee was advised that, whilst there were outstanding final consultation responses from Transport NI and Rivers Agency, they presented no issues of principle and it was considered that any technical matters could be dealt with through conditions.

            The Committee was advised that one letter of objection had been received in relation to the original plans, raising concerns with backland development, the height of the proposed development, loss of privacy, light intrusion and increased traffic activity.

            The Case officer advised the Members that amended plans had since been submitted by the developer which sought to address a number of the concerns raised. 

            She explained that backland development in the area was long established.  The Members were advised that each dwelling would be provided with its own private amenity area and were above the minimum space standards as set by Creating Places. 

            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.

            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.

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

            The Case officer provided the Committee with the principal details of the development of one of the Pavilions on the former Belvoir Park Hospital site.  She explained that the application was before the Committee as the Historic Environment Division (HED) of the Department for Communities (DfC) had advised that the proposed development was contrary to policy and that it was therefore required to be referred to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI).

            She provided the Members with the planning history of the site. The Committee was advised that the pavilions benefitted from two extant planning approvals, one for subdivision into townhouses and apartments (Y/2009/0461/F) and another for subdivision into townhouses (Y/2014/0401/F).  She explained that the current applications sought to enact some of the previous townhouse approval at either end of the pavilion, with the creation of a revised apartment layout in the central block.

            The Case officer explained that an objection had been received from the HED stating that it believed that the proposals were contrary to PPS6 in its current form.  HED had stated that, whilst it acknowledged that the previous approval for townhouses had resulted in the historic entrance being used for one unit only, its view was that the development should be laid out so that the main entrance was used communally by all the apartments, rather than being converted to a single apartment. 

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack.  The Case officer highlighted that two attic windows which were previously intended to be reinstated had been bricked up.  She explained that the developer had since submitted plans which illustrated that the windows would remain bricked up and that delegated authority was therefore being sought to review the amendment in consultation with HED.

            As noted in the Late Items Pack, HED had reiterated its objection and had also suggested a number of negative conditions on a without prejudice basis, relating to the materials used, windows and joinery.

            The Committee noted that DfI Roads had no objections subject to conditions and informatives.

            After discussion, the Committee granted approval to the applications, 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, including the resolution of issues with HED regarding the materials.

            The Case officer explained that the application had been submitted for the Committee’s consideration as the applicant was a member of staff in the Planning and Building Control Department.

            She explained the principal aspects of the application for a single storey rear infill extension.

            The Members were advised that no objections had been received.

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