Agenda and minutes

            As both the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson had given their apologies for the start of the meeting, it was agreed that Councillor Groogan would take the role of Chairperson for the meeting.

            No apologies for inability to attend were reported.

            The minutes of the meetings of 4th and 17th 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 1st December, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor Murphy declared an interest in item 6h, LA04/2020/0708/F – Lands at Boodles Dam, in that he had engaged with Council officers in relation to the application and had previously expressed an opinion in relation to it. He left the meeting during the discussion on the item.

            Councillor McCullough declared an interest in item 6i, LA04/2020/0673/F - the Bullring, in that the organisation that he worked for was involved with the application, and that he would therefore leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion on the item.

            Councillor Nicholl declared an interest in Item 6a, Lands to the south of Harberton Park, in that she had engaged with residents in the area, that she wished to speak in objection to it and would therefore leave after speaking on it and would not participate in the vote.

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

            The Committee was provided with an update on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Council’s financial position, and a strategy to address the forecast deficit and the mitigation measures which had and would be taken as the situation evolved.

Noted.

            It was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 2nd December in respect of application LA04/2019/0463/F - Revision of previously approved application (Z/2012/0645/RM) and erection of 10 semi-detached dwellings and  associated site works - Plots 36-45 of residential development on lands south of 25 Harberton Park.

·        LA04/2019/2653/F - Demolition of existing property and erection of a 9 storey building (overall height 37m) comprising a ground floor retail unit together with cycle parking and plant areas: and 8 floors of grade A office accommodation at Chancery House 88 Victoria Street; and

·        LA04/2020/1864/F - Application under Section 54 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in respect of planning permission Z/2014/0077/F (erection of new pavilion, new 3G all weather pitch with associated perimeter and spectator fencing, ball catch nets, floodlighting and improvements to pedestrian and vehicular access to include new access, footpath and car parking) to vary Condition 13 (seeking to vary the scheme of landscaping to be implemented) at Glassmullin Gardens/Slieveban Drive.

            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 10th November and 10th December.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0         Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1          Correspondence has been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED) of the Department for Communities (DFC), inviting the council to review and provide feedback on a draft guidance document proposed for councils in relation to the listed building process, entitled ‘Information guide for Local Councils: Listed Buildings’.

2.0          Recommendations

2.1          Committee is requested to:

·        consider the suggested feedback set out in Appendix 1 and if appropriate support a response to the consultation that welcomes the proposed Guide on the basis of the comments being addressed in the final document; and

·        note the contents of Appendix 2 (available on mod.gov), which sets out the draft consultation document provided by HED

3.0Main report

      The document in Appendix 2 is a draft of a guidance note for councils in relation to the listed building process which is welcomed both in terms of the early consultation and the provision of a guide to this aspect of heritage designations.  HED have invited feedback or comments on this draft, or if additional information on any aspects contained within the document could be supplemented to provide a better understanding of the listed building and associated process.

3.2The following points should be noted for clarity in respect of the draft documentation:

·        the final imagery has not been included in this early draft document

·        shaded / highlighted text, included for drafting purposes by HED, should be ignored

·        editing notes /instructions such as [Heading] or [1.1] and associated text should be ignored

3.3HED have requested that responses are returned by the 21 December 2020 and in addition to comments Appendix 1 summarises each section of the draft document under the relevant headings contained in the Guide:

1.      Why are buildings listed?

2.      How are buildings listed?

3.      Understand the criteria for listing

4.      Objecting to a listing / de-listing proposal

5.      Making changes to listed buildings

6.      Further guidance and information

7.      Case Study / Survey report example

3.4The suggested comments and recommendations that it is proposed would form the basis of a response to HED are also included within the text of Appendix 1. Where appropriate the comments include a reference to the specific area of the draft Guidance to which they relate. 

      Financial & Resource Implications 

3.5None 

      Equality or Good Relations Implications

3.6None.

Appendix 1

Summary and Comments on draft Information guide for Local Councils: Listed Buildings, December 2020

Brief summary of each section

Council comments in bold italics

1.      Why are buildings listed?

·        Department for Communities has a statutory duty to protect buildings through listings;

·        Listed buildings are man-made objects and structures designated as being of ‘special architectural or historic interest’ under Article 80(1) of the Planning Act (N.I);

·        Listing a building celebrates a buildings special architectural and historic interest;

·        Listing brings it under the consideration of the planning system so that it can be protected for future generations;

·        The listing of buildings began in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0         Purpose of Report and Summary of Main Issues

1.1          Thepurposeofthisreportistoprovide Members with an update on performance and improvement in relation to the Council’s Planning Service.

2.0          Recommendation

2.1          The Planning Committee is asked to note the report.

3.0          Main Report

               Background

3.1          The Planning Committee receives periodic updates on performance and improvement. Given the need to prioritise business continuity during the pandemic, this has not happened over recent months. This report therefore provides an update to Members on performance and improvement to date for 2020/21.

3.2          The Planning Service has responded positively to the challenges presented by COVID-19 and is currently fully operational save for the office being closed to the public, which is a corporate decision. This means that the hard copy planning register is currently unavailable to view by customers, however planning applications continue to be accessible online and alternative arrangements are being made for the public to view applications as and when required. The Council is actively encouraging new applications and amended plans to be submitted by email as it is both quicker and more efficient than hard copies. The Duty Planner service is operating remotely.

               Performance

3.3          Development Management performance has inevitably been affected by COVID-19, which has presented a range of challenges. The Planning Service has adapted very well and introduced a number of changes including:

·        Development of new processes and roll out of IT to support remote working;

·        External and internal face-to-face meetings conducted through video conferencing;

·        Staff working in the office on a part-time rota basis;

·        Promotion of email application and Pre Application Discussion submissions;

·        Specific COVID-19 risk assessments for office working and site visits; and

·        Temporary virtual Planning Committees.

3.4          The Planning and Building Control followed corporate guidance and a number of planning staff were furloughed in June and July.

3.5          Regular updates have been provided to customers both directly and on the planning pages of the Council’s website on the availability of services.

3.6          Inevitably, there has been an impact on performance since the pandemic began earlier in the year with the total number live planning applications on hand having increased as shown in the table below, reflective of processing delays. Planning applications peaked at 1,217 but have been reduced by 100 to 1,117 live applications. Enforcement complaints had risen to over 550 but these have since lowered to pre-lockdown levels.

3.7          Importantly, the Planning Service has introduced a number of successful changes and performance has been improving over recent months with increased decisions and the total number of live applications and enforcement cases falling.

3.8          Members will be aware that planning performance is subject to three statutory indicators:

·        Average time for processing Major applications (target 30 weeks);

·        Average time for processing Local applications (target 15 weeks);

·        % of enforcement cases concluded within 39 weeks (target 70%).

3.9          2020/21 performance for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9b

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0         Purpose of Report and Summary of Main Issues

1.1                  Thepurposeofthisreportisfor Members to consider and note the inaugural Annual Monitoring Report for Financial Developer Contributions (available on mod.gov)

2.0          Recommendation

2.1          The Planning Committee is asked to note this report and Annual Monitoring Report.

3.0          Background

3.1          Since the reform of local government and transfer of planning powers to councils in April 2015, Belfast City Council has secured over £3.5 million in financial Developer Contributions, required to mitigate the impacts of new development on the city and make it acceptable.

3.2          In December 2020, the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee agreed that as part of the governance arrangements around financial Developer Contributions, the Council would publish an Annual Monitoring Report.

3.3          The purpose of the Annual Monitoring Report is as follows:

·        To set out what monies have been secured to date and for which purpose;

·        To confirm what monies have been paid to the Council so far;

·        To clarify what monies have been committed and in which areas;

·        To confirm what monies have been spent and on which projects; and

·        To provide greater transparency around the process of Developer Contributions

3.4          This is the Council’s inaugural Annual Monitoring Report, which publishes for the first time, key information around financial Developer Contributions collected to date. As it is the first annual report it covers the financial period from April 2015 to March 2020.

3.5          The Annual Monitoring Report will be made available to the public on the planning pages of the Council’s website.

4.0          Finance and Resource Implications

4.1          The Council has secured in principle over £3.5 million in financial Developer Contributions since 2015, of which £2.4 million has been received to date. Other services areas within the Council are responsible for managing and spending those monies.

4.2          The Planning Service employs an Assistant Planning Officer to proactively monitor compliance with Section 76 planning agreements – the vehicle used to secure financial Developer Contributions. This post is currently temporary and funded by monitoring fees secured through the Section 76 planning agreement process. Those monitoring fees are ring-fenced for that purpose.

5.0          Equality or Good Relations Implications/Rural Needs Assessment

5.1          There are no equality or good relations implications associated with this report.”

            The Committee noted the contents of the report.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0         Purpose of Report and Summary of Main Issues

1.1          Thepurposeofthisreportistoprovide Members with an updated programme of Planning Committee Training Workshops.  The Planning Committee is asked to agree the revised programme.

2.0          Recommendation

2.1          The Planning Committee is asked to agree the updated programme of Planning Committee Training Workshops for the period January 2020 to February 2022.

3.0          Main Report

3.1          In February 2020, the Planning Committee agreed a revised programme of Planning Committee Training Workshops to support Members’ continuous development. However, the training programme was postponed due to the pandemic.

3.2          An updated training programme is provided below and is proposed to recommence in January 2021. It is intended that the first workshop will be on transport issues with DFI Roads (originally scheduled for March 2020) subject to their availability.

3.3          The Planning Committee is asked to agree the updated programme of Planning Committee Training Workshops.

               Finance and Resource Implications

3.4          The preparation of training workshops, including attendance by officers, will have some impact on resources but is considered value for money. Where appropriate, the Planning Service may choose to appoint outside professionals or agencies to lead or participate in the training, which may result in additional costs.

               Equality or Good Relations Implications/Rural Needs Assessment

3.5          There are no equality or good relations implications associated with this report.”

            The Committee agreed:

1.     the programme of Planning Committee Training Workshops for the period January 2020 to February 2022; and

2.     that the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or their nominees, would attend the remote NI Planning Conference on 11th February, 2021.

            (Councillor Nicholl declared an interest in the item and advised that she wished to speak against it.  She left the meeting after addressing the Committee and did not participate in the vote)

            The Committee was reminded that the application had been on the agenda for the meeting of 17th November but that it had been deferred in order that the Committee could undertake a site visit.  The Principal Planning officer explained that the site visit had taken place on 2nd December and, as the application had not yet been presented to the Committee, that all Members’ present at the meeting were able to take part in the debate and vote.

            She explained that the proposed development was in substitution for 10 units previously approved, which consisted of 8 semi-detached and 2 detached dwellings granted under planning reference Z/2012/0645/RM.

            The site was not zoned for a use within BUAP, draft BMAP 2004 or the unlawfully adopted version ofBMAP 2015.

            The Principal Planning officer drew the Committee’s attention to a number of Late Items which had been received after the publication of the Committee report.  She explained that amended drawings had been received from the agent on 13th December, showing amendments to the proposed floor plans, including a reduction from 5 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms in 4 of the dwellings and a reduction from 5 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms and a home office in 6 of the dwellings.   The amendments had been made by the applicant in response to previous objections regarding the inclusion of a fifth bedroom in the design proposals. 

            She explained to the Committee that the parking requirements for 4 bed semi-detached dwellings were 2.75 spaces, and that the amendments did not impact on the required spaces, as the previous calculation was based on that arrangement, due to there being no specific standards outlined in Creating Places for 5 bed semi-detached dwellings.

            The Committee was advised that, while the Council welcomed the reduction in numbers of proposed bedrooms, there was nothing to stop potential occupiers using the proposed home office as a bedroom and that to condition it would not be reasonable.

            In response to concerns raised by objectors, she explained that officers were recommending a condition to remove permitted development rights, so that potential occupiers would always require planning permission if any additional operational development or extension was proposed.

            The Members were advised that the developer had sent a response to queries received from an elected Member, advising that existing occupiers on the surrounding site had all signed a covenant which prohibited HMO use and that any future covenants could be even more explicit in the transfer and could include HMO use as a distinct limb of restriction, for the avoidance of any doubt.

            The Principal Planning officer reminded the Committee that planning permission was required to change the use of residential dwellings to an HMO.

            She highlighted that 29 objections had been received in respect of the proposed development, relating to a number of issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

(Councillor Nicholl re-joined the meeting at this point)

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

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with a detailed overview of the retrospective application for roof top plant works.

            She explained that the application site was located within the Belfast City Centre Conservation Area, and within close proximity to a number of listed buildings, including the Scottish Provident Building and the City Hall.  She outlined that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the most prominent view of the important listed buildings, due to its unsightly and non-historic form.

            The Committee was advised that it was considered that the screens would result in a negative impact on the setting of the City Hall when viewed from its gardens and from Donegall Square. The screens were also considered to be contextually inappropriate to the backdrop of the Scottish Provident Building.

The proposal was assessed against and was considered to be contrary to the SPPS, BUAP, Draft BMAP, PPS6 and Section 104 of the Planning Act 2011.

            The Principal Planning officer reported that Historic Environment Division and the Council’s Conservation Team had been consulted, and both consultees were unable to support the proposal.  The Committee was advised that no third party comments had been received.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. G. Graham, applicant, to the meeting.  He outlined that:

·        the scheme known as Merchants Square was unique, it was the only building of its kind in Belfast to achieve the BREEAM sustainability rating of excellent;

·        fifteen previously vacant shops now housed new businesses in its immediate vicinity;

·        PwC would relocate to Merchants Square and the building was being fine-tuned to meet its requirements, specifications and standards;

·        the standard Belfast office fit-out was not acceptable for a global centre for PwCs in terms of its block chain and cyber security operations, which would be operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year;

·        extraordinary volumes of plant were therefore required to meet the needs of the company, including ventilation and cooling requirements for the technology which had to be of international standards;

·        they had approached the planners in September 2018, having looked at how they would fit those requirements onto the already approved roof;

·        the roof plant applied for in the current application covered 14,000sqft where the plant or screen causing offence covers less than 1,000sqft, less than 0.3% of the entire site;

·        some works had been finished and had been approved by building control but unfortunately there was no other location for the plant to go as they did not physically have the space;

·        he had reviewed the consultees comments and noted the officer’s conclusion;

·        he had worked continuously since 2016 to enhance the look of the Conservation Area and had successfully navigated six planning approvals in respect of the building;

·        the screens had been mounted to attempt to soften the look of the ventilation ducting which, although unsightly, was absolutely necessary;

·        the screens could be moved, lowered or changed to an alternative material, but the plant could not; and

·        if the cost of securing 3,000 new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10c

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application for retrospective amendments to a previously approved application.

            She explained that the application was before the Committee as a Member had called in the application, by reason of visual impact and separation distance.

            The Committee was advised that the changes included a marginal change in footprint, alterations to window and door openings and the inclusion of additional roof lights, which were considered acceptable. She explained that the tiered gardens were typical along that stretch of the Malone Road.  She outlined that the incorporation of soft landscaping would help visually integrate the level changes and that the boundaries had been reduced to step down gradually to the rear in line with the neighbouring boundaries to ensure they were not visually dominant. The fencing proposed was double sided, which would help to reduce the potential for intervisibility and that, on balance, the scheme was considered acceptable.

            The Committee was advised that, at the time of writing the report, two third party representations had been received from a neighbour who was objecting to the application.  The issues raised included the loss of light, overshadowing, overlooking, out of character with the existing property, overdevelopment of the site and encroachment of land, impact on wildlife, loss of private view and value of property, removal of party hedge and fencing and access issues to conservatory/ an inaccessible void had been created.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack, where a number of further emails had been received from the same objector, Mrs. C. Rodgers.  The Committee’s attention was drawn to a surveyor’s report which she had submitted, which looked at the building work which had taken place at the site in terms of the encroachment of boundary and other matters.  The Principal Planning officer provided the officers’ response to the issues raised.

            She reported that the retrospective amendments would have no more of an impact to neighbouring properties compared to that approved under LA04/2018/2960/F in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, dominance and overlooking and that there would be no significant impact.  She explained that conditions would be imposed to ensure that the boundary fences were reduced and that the double sided fencing would be no higher than 2.5metres higher than the neighbouring ground.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. C. Rodgers to the meeting.  She advised the Committee that:

·        the application centred around four enforcement orders;

·        a void had been created, which animals could fall into;

·        a civil case was ongoing as a result of building work on site;

·        she alleged that the applicant had breached every form of planning and had encroached upon her property;

·        she couldn’t get her guttering cleaned recently due to the ongoing works;

·        there was no soundproofing between the properties and she required privacy for her job;

·        the applicant had not applied for a licence for water; and

·        she requested that the Committee defer consideration of the application and that planners carry out a site visit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10d

            The Planning Manager provided the Members with an overview of the application for a 103 bed care home. 

            He explained that, in the BUAP, the site was located within the development limit of Belfast and was not zoned for any use.  In draft BMAP 2004 and 2015 the site was located within the Belfast Metropolitan/Settlement development limit and was not zoned for any specific use.

            He outlined the issues which had been considered during the assessment, including the impact on the Conservation Area, the height, scale and massing, the impact on the surrounding amenity, the impact on the setting of the listed King’s Hall, access, movement and parking, environmental issues and drainage and flood risk.

            The Committee was advised that six objections had been received, raising concerns relating to the access arrangements from Balmoral Avenue, the impact of the proposal on surrounding development and that the scale of development was out of keeping with the surrounding area. The Planning Manager advised that the Balmoral Avenue access arrangements had been approved as part of Phase 1 of the King’s Hall redevelopment and were already under construction. 

            He added that DFI Roads was content with the proposed access arrangements from Balmoral Avenue to serve the site. The Members were advised that the siting of the proposed development had sought to maximise the separation distances between it and adjacent properties, which were considered to be sufficient, to ensure that no adverse impact would result to neighbouring amenity.

            He drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items pack, whereby DFI Roads had submitted a further consultation response to an objection.  DFI Roads had confirmed that it remained content that the access was acceptable, as laid out in its earlier response.  DFI Roads had also advised that a site visit had taken place as well as an online meeting to discuss and clarify the outstanding issues and concerns raised by the objector, and that all relevant engineering and safety information was available on the Planning Portal.

            The Committee was advised that HED, NI Water, Rivers Agency, Regulation Unit Land and Groundwater Team, Natural Environment Division, Environmental Health and the Tree officer had also been consulted and had no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.

            The Planning Manager explained that discussions were ongoing with the applicant as to the appropriate mechanism by which to secure the restoration of the Listed King’s Hall from wider development within the King’s Hall complex and the potential requirement to include conditions linking the restoration of the King’s Hall to that specific development. Those conditions had already been applied to the Phase 1 Kings Hall proposals which were under construction. As such, he explained that delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control was being sought to finalise the proposed conditions and the Section 76 planning agreement, subject to no new substantive planning issues being raised by third parties.

            He explained that the applicant had worked with officers and had changed the design in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10e

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application, which sought permission, under Section 54 of the Planning Act to vary conditions 2, 3, 5 and 7 of planning permission LA04/2015/0405/F to enable the development to be delivered in two phases. He explained that Phase 1 would be the construction of a pedestrian toucan crossing on Ormeau Embankment, while Phase 2 would comprise the remaining works, including construction of the main bridge structure.

The Committee was reminded that planning permission for the bridge had been granted in April 2016 with various conditions and was due to expire in April 2021. The Principal planning officer explained that the funding to construct the bridge would not be available until the end of 2020 and that it was likely that a contractor would not be appointed until after the expiry of the planning permission.

            Given the tight timescales, there was a risk that there would be insufficient time for the contractor to compile and submit the detailed environmental surveys required prior to April 2021.  It was therefore proposed that the development be ‘phased’ and to construct the approved toucan crossing on Ormeau Embankment as the first phase. He explained that the works required minimal invasive works to the existing carriageway and could therefore be implemented without risk to the surrounding environment.

            The Members were advised that, by enacting the planning permission, it would allow the contractor time to undertake the required surveys and submit them before construction commenced on the permitted bridge, pedestrian and cycle links, car park, storm drainage, lighting and landscaping.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that additional conditions had been requested by DFI Roads, DEARA and SES and were necessary in order to secure delivery of the appropriate roads infrastructure details and to ensure adequate mitigation in order to protect natural heritage features and assets.  He highlighted 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 and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

            (Councillor Murphy declared an interest in this item and left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            The Principal Planning officer outlined the details of the application to the Committee.

            He explained that the site included lands at Boodle’s Dam, following the Wolfhill Mill Race watercourse, extending to the intersection with the Ligoniel River. The site was surrounded by fencing and contained a large number of mature trees, and was mostly overgrown and inaccessible.

            The Members were advised that the site was identified as an Area of Existing Open Space, a local landscape policy area (LLPA) and site of local nature conservation importance (SLNCI), as designated within both (Draft) Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 and 2004. The Principal Planning officer explained that the site was identified within the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) as Lands reserved for Landscape, Amenity or Recreation use.  He advised that it had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the SPPS, BUAP, Draft BMAP 2015, PPS 2, PPS 3, PPS 6, PPS 8, and PPS 15.  

            The Committee was asked to note that all consultees had raised no issues of concern, subject to conditions, and that the proposal was considered acceptable.  The Principal Planning officer added that no representations or objections had been received.

            He advised that the key issues considered in the assessment of the application were the principle of use on the site, design and layout, impact on natural heritage, access, movement, parking and transportation, including road safety, impact on built heritage, flood risk, landscaping and other environmental matters.

            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 Murphy returned to the meeting at this point)

            Moved by Councillor O’Hara

            Seconded by Councillor Collins,

      That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application to allow the Department for Communities to attend the meeting, in order to discuss the loss of open space

            On a vote, five Members voted for the proposal and seven against and it was declared lost.

            Accordingly, the Committee proceeded to consider the application.

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the details of the major application.  He explained that the large site was known as “The Bullring", and was located parallel to the Westlink motorway and adjacent to Denmark Street/California Close between Peters Hill and Regent Street, Belfast. It was an area of open space, characterised by variety of trees and pathways.

            The Members were advised that the site was unzoned white land within Draft BMAP 2004 and BMAP 2015 and, the BUAP 2001.  He explained that the proposal was considered to comply with the SPPS, BUAP, dBMAP 2015, PPS 2, PPS 3, PPS 6, PPS 8, and PPS 15.

            He explained the key issues which had been considered during the assessment included the principle of use on the site, design and layout, impact on natural heritage, access, movement, parking and transportation, impact on built heritage, flood risk, landscaping and other environmental factors.

            The Committee was advised that Environmental Health, NI Water, BCC Parks and Recreation, DFI Roads, DFI Rivers, DAERA Water Management Unit, DAERA Regulation Unit and the Natural Environment Division had been consulted and had raised no issues of concern, subject to conditions, and had deemed the proposal acceptable.

            He explained that a final response had been received from the BCC Tree Officer after the Case officer’s report had been published and the Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack.  He advised that correspondence had been received from the agent in response to comments which had been made by the BCC Tree Officers regarding the loss of trees on the site.  The agent advised that, since one of the main objectives of the project was to increase visibility and reduce anti-social behaviour, removal of the existing large earth mounds was required, to regrade the site to ground profile, thereby providing unrestricted visibility across the site.  Due to the significant earthworks required it would not be possible to retain or thin existing trees across the entire site.  The agent also noted the recommendation for transplanting existing trees and that it would incorporated into the scheme at Upper Townsend Terrace and Peter’s Hill/Shankill Terrace.

            The Principal Planning officer confirmed that officers felt that it was a balance between retaining the vegetation and opening up and enhancing the space and that the agent would submit a further landscaping plan and that the Tree officer would be consulted again in relation to it.

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that Mr. T. Sloan and Mr. P. Murray, agents for the application, were in attendance.  A Member stated that they wished to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10h

            The Senior Planning officer outlined the details of the application for a change of use to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) at the above location.

            She advised the Members that five representations and a signed petition had been received in relation to the application, raising issues, including anti-social behaviour, lack of parking, odours, that neighbours had not been informed and a lack of family housing provision.

            The Senior Planning officer explained that the application site was within an HMO Development Node as designated within the HMO Subject Plan for Belfast (2015). She highlighted that Policy HM0 3 stated that planning permission would only be granted along the frontages of designated HMO Development Nodes, providing it did not include HMO development at ground floor level within a designated commercial node or shopping area. As the site was not within a designated commercial node, the ground floor was not required to be commercial. The proposal was also in line with Policy HMO 6 as the criteria within the policy were either met or were not relevant.

            A number of Members expressed concerns in relation to the traffic in that stretch of the road and particularly in relation to the fact that DFI Roads had responded with no concerns.

            The officer’s recommendation to approve the application was put to the Committee. 

            On a vote, no Members voted for the proposal, one against and eleven no votes, and it was declared lost.

            Moved by Councillor Groogan

            Seconded by Councillor O’Hara and

      Resolved - that the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the proposal to ask DFI Roads to assess the site and that they be also requested to attend the next meeting in relation to the application.

            The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with the details of the Council application which sought permission for a new equipped playground adjacent to the Matt Talbot Youth club and MUGA pitch, with a new pedestrian entrance from Moyard Parade. She outlined that the playground would be bound by a landscaped area, with 17 trees to be planted, and with replacement fencing along the eastern boundary of the playground.

            She outlined that the site was within the development limits for Belfast and was located on ‘white land’ in dBMAP 2015. The Members were advised that the proposal complied with the Development Plan and relevant policy.

            The Committee was advised that DfI Roads, Environmental Health, NI Water and Rivers Agency had no objections to the application and that no third party objections had been made.

            The Committee granted approval to the application.

            The Committee was advised of the key details of the Council application.

            The Senior Planning officer advised the Committee that the proposal was deemed to comply with the SPPS and PPS 6 and that it was considered acceptable with no adverse impacts on the listed building. She outlined that HED had been consulted and had no objections.

            The Committee granted approval to the application.

            The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application.

            She advised the Committee that the proposal was deemed to comply with the SPPS and PPS 6 and that it was considered acceptable with no adverse impacts on the listed building. She outlined that HED had been consulted and had no objections.

            The Committee granted approval to the application.