Agenda and minutes

            No declarations of interest were reported.

            It was reported that correspondence had been received in respect of the following:

      Notification from the Roads Service regarding the proposed provision of a disabled parking bay at 13 Windsor Road; and

      Notification from the Department for Social Development in respect of a Notice of Application for a Vesting Order for land at 38 Bank Street.

            Copies of the letters, maps and orders relating to the above-mentioned matters were made available at the meeting for the information of the Members.

                                    Noted.

            (Mr. S. Kendall, Department of the Environment, Planning Service attended in connection with this item.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 16th February, it had agreed that a request would be made to officials from the Planning Service inviting them to attend a future meeting to update Members on the progress achieved to date in respect of the Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Subject Plan.  Accordingly, it was reported that Mr. S. Kendall from the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service was in attendance and he was welcomed to the meeting by the Chairman.

            Mr. Kendall reminded the Committee that the HMO Subject Plan had been prepared by the Planning Service, in conjunction with an Inter-Agency Strategic Group which had been established by the Council with input from a range of representatives of its services such as Environmental Health, Cleansing, Pollution Control, Building Control and Waste Management, as well as external agencies which included the Police Service for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office, the Community Safety Unit and the Universities.  The purpose of the Subject Plan was to inform the general public, statutory authorities, developers and other interested bodies of the policy framework that would be used to guide planning decisions in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation within the Council area.  

            Mr. Kendall pointed out that, since the Draft HMO Plan for Belfast had been published in 2006, two hundred and eighty-seven applications had been referred to the HMO Team, the majority of which (two hundred and sixty two) had been within the Botanic, Holylands and Rugby designated HMO Policy Area.  He reminded Members that the HMO Strategy had been developed to protect the amenity, to accommodate need, to focus on regeneration and to promote purpose built accommodation to meet the needs of student housing requirements.  He added that the HMO Subject Plan aimed to adopt a balanced approach to HMO development by seeking to influence positively and shape the market for HMOs while controlling and curtailing further development in areas where such accommodation was concentrated currently.

            Mr. Kendall referred to the document entitled “Belfast: A Learning City - Holyland and Wider University Area Strategic Study” which had been published by the Council in March and suggested that the proposals therein would enable the issue of HMOs to be managed positively within a multi-agency approach.  He outlined the principal aspects of the Plan which sought to:

·         identify appropriate housing opportunities;

·         provide policy advice on the conversion of existing premises;

·         develop a student housing accreditation scheme;

·         promote housing regeneration;

·         encourage neighbourhood management initiatives;

·         integrate transport;

·         provide public realm environmental improvements; and

·         improve safety within an area. 

            Mr. Kendall informed the Committee that an HMO monitor was currently in operation which provided an annual update to the Inter-Agency Group.  The monitor had identified a significant reduction in HMO related applications, with fourteen approvals having been granted within the last six years.

            Mr. Kendall then answered a number of questions put by Members in relation to the need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

            The Committee noted that no requests for deputations had been received.

            (Mr. M. McKenna, Planning and Transport Assistant, attended in connection with this item.)

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1  Relevant Background Information

1.1The Department of the Environment (DoE) on 26th March 2012 released for public consultation draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Policy PED 8 of PPS 4 ‘Development incompatible with Economic Development Uses’.

1.2The draft Supplementary Planning Guidance aims to provide clarity to PPS 4 Policy PED 8 with particular attention paid to clarifying the circumstances when certain economic development uses will be considered incompatible with an existing or approved ‘sensitive industrial enterprise’ and should be refused planning approval.

1.3Due to the four week consultation period provided by the DoE a Belfast City Council officer response was submitted pending Committee consideration and ratification by full Council.

1.4Appendix 1 contains the Officer response for consideration by Members.

 2   Key Issues

2.1During consultation with internal Council Departments a number of issues were identified with the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance. The main issues are summarised below and identified in full detail in Appendix 1.

2.2The consultation paper seeks to prioritise ‘sensitive industries’ ahead of other various types of other economic development uses. The DoE list of sensitive industries which would be protected includes pharmaceutical companies; medical products; food processing; electronics; and ICT. There are concerns that in the absence of clarification the proposed approach complicates the decision making process rather than offering clarity for these types of developments.

2.3For the guidance to be effective it will require the Department to compile, maintain and make publicly available a list of what is considered to be sensitive industrial enterprises. The initial response suggested that there should be engagement with industry regulators to help formulate this list along with local councils.

2.4The draft guidance recommends that the proposal is considered in relation to its proximity to the sensitive industrial enterprise. The document provides no further information on what will be considered a ‘safe’ distance in which a development use deemed incompatible will be able to gain planning permission. In this respect the supplementary planning guidance provides less clarity for developers and decision makers.

2.5Whilst it is recognised that there may be very few cases where this policy guidance will deem a proposed use as incompatible, caution must be exercised in application of the policy in order to avoid any potential unintended consequences such as blighting of land or the migration of industry to less sustainable, more rural locations where there is a perception of better air quality.

2.6There are a number of issues with the consultation document in terms of the Council’s current responsibilities and potential future responsibilities. It is in the context of meeting various EU recycling and energy from waste requirements that there would be concerns in respect of this supplementary planning guidance placing an emphasis against perceived unclean land uses like waste management facilities.

2.7The Council have received various expressions of interest from research and development companies and institutes keen to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

            The Committee noted a list of deferred items which were still under consideration by the Belfast Planning Office.

            The Committee noted information which had been received regarding the date for the holding of a future appeal.

            The Committee noted a list of Streamlined Planning Applications’ Decisions which had been issued by the Planning Service during the period from 24th April until 8th May.

            The Committee noted a list of planning applications which had been received by the Belfast Planning Manager for the Council area for the period from 24th April until 30th April and 1st May until 7th May.

            The Committee considered further a planning application in relation to the proposed change of use to a backpackers’ hostel in respect of which the Divisional Planning Manager had offered an opinion to approve.

            After discussion, it was

            Moved by Councillor McCarthy,

            Seconded by Councillor Lavery,

      That the decision of the Divisional Planning Manager to approve the application for the proposed change of use to a backpackers’ hostel at the above-mentioned location be rejected on the grounds that such a development, if permitted, would result in an over-development of the site due to its scale and mass and would set an unacceptable precedent for future development within the vicinity.

            On a vote by show of hands fourteen voted for the proposal and one against and it was accordingly declared carried.

            (As the decision was not unanimous it was subject to ratification by the Council.)

            The Committee considered further a planning application in relation to the proposed demolition of an existing warehouse to enable the construction of an eight storey residential development, comprising ninety-three apartments with basement parking below and associated landscaping, in respect of which the Divisional Planning Manager had offered an opinion to approve.

            After discussion, it was

            Moved by Councillor Lavery,

            Seconded by Alderman Rodgers,

      That the decision of the Divisional Planning Manager to approve the application for the proposed demolition of an existing warehouse to enable the construction of an eight storey residential development, comprising ninety-three apartments with basement parking below and associated landscaping, at the above-mentioned location be rejected on the grounds that such a development, if permitted, would result in an over-development of the site due to its scale and mass and would set an unacceptable precedent for future development within the vicinity.

            On a vote by show of hands nine voted for the proposal and none against and it was accordingly declared carried.

            (As the decision was not unanimous it was subject to ratification by the Council.)

            The Committee considered a planning application which had been submitted on behalf of Vodafone UK Limited for the erection of mobile telecommunications equipment, in respect of which the Divisional Planning Manager had offered an opinion to approve.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed, with one Member voting against, to adopt the opinion of the Divisional Planning Manager to approve the application.

            (As the decision was not unanimous it was subject to ratification by the Council.)

            The Committee considered further the undernoted applications and, after discussion, adopted the recommendations of the Belfast Planning Manager thereon:

Site and Applicant                      Proposal                                     Divisional Planning

                                                                                                      Manager’s Opinion

142 Haypark Avenue                 Erection of two storey                Approval

McGuinness Architects             side and rear extension

                                                   and replacement garage.