Agenda and minutes

            Apologies were reported on behalf of Councillors Bunting and Carson.

            The minutes of the meeting of 17th October 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 November, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Regarding item 9.a) LA04/2015/0061/F - Fifty-five bed nursing home on lands to rear of 21 Finaghy Park Central, Councillor McAteer declared an interest, in so far as she had facilitated a meeting for some of the objectors to the proposal, and had made a deputation at the last meeting in relation to the application.  

(Alderman McGimpsey had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            Pursuant to its decision of 17th October, it was noted that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 2nd November in respect of planning application LA04/2015/0061/F - Fifty-five bed nursing home on lands to rear of 21 Finaghy Park Central.

            The Committee agreed to meet at 5.00 p.m. on the following dates during 2018:

·        Tuesday,16th and Thursday, 18th January;

·        Tuesday,13th and Thursday, 15th February;

·        Tuesday,13th and Thursday, 15th March;

·        Tuesday,17th and Thursday, 19th April;

·        Tuesday,15th and Thursday, 17th May;

·        Tuesday, 12th and Thursday, 14th June;

·        No meetings scheduled in July;

·        Tuesday,14th and Thursday, 16th August;

·        Tuesday,11th and Thursday, 13th September;

·        Tuesday,16th and Thursday, 18th October;

·        Tuesday,13th and Thursday, 15th November; and

·        Tuesday, 11th and Thursday, 13th December.

            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 delegated authority by the Director of Planning and Place, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 11th October and 6th November, 2017.

            The Director tabled a report regarding an update on the departmental planning performance. He highlighted that the figures outlined were internally sourced and not official statistics from the Department for Infrastructure, and therefore, might be subject to change once the official statistics were subsequently released.

            He provided a breakdown of the monthly performance up to 31st October, 2017 as follows:

            Planning Applications

·        212 applications had been validated in October, 2017;

·        242 applications had been validated in September, 2017; and

            Planning Decisions

·        304 decisions had been issued in October, 2017;

·        240 decisions had been issued in September, 2017;

·        89% approval rate;

·        96% decisions had been issued under delegated authority; and

            No. of applications in system by length of time

·        913 live applications were in the system at end of October, 2017;

·        28% of applications were in the system for more than 6 months; and

·        8 legacy applications were outstanding.

Performance against statutory targets (un-validated management information)

·        The statutory target for processing major development planning applications from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date was within an average of 30 weeks. In October, the average processing time to decide major applications was 31.6 weeks, with 50% of applications on target. Performance however was skewed by a small number of applications.

·        The statutory target for processing local development planning applications from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date was an average of 15 weeks. In October, 2017, the average processing time to decide local applications was 15 weeks, with 51% of decisions issued on target;

·        The statutory target was that 70% of all enforcement cases are progressed to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt of complaint. In October, 2017, 56% of enforcement cases had been concluded on target. This drop in performance could be contributed to a recent focus on concluding longstanding enforcement cases; and

·        On average, the execution of Section 76 agreements added an extra 24 weeks to the processing times, however, a more detailed update would be submitted to the Committee in December.

            The Director highlighted that there had been a significant increase in the numbers of decisions which had been issued in the last month and reiterated that robust measurement and management of the performance, as outlined last month, would continue.

            He advised that statutory consultee response timescales would also be submitted to the next Committee meeting.

                                                                                                                                    Noted

(Councillor Mullan entered the meeting at this point.)

(Alderman McGimpsey returned to the Committee table at this point.)

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence from the Department for Infrastructure which related to the Extinguishment of Public Rights of Way at:

·        Annalee Court;

·        Hopewell Crescent; and

·        Mountpottinger Road.

            The Committee was advised that correspondence had been received from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) seeking the Council’s views in respect of proposals which had been formulated for the listing of a number of buildings in Belfast.

            The Committee was reminded that Article 80 (3) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 required the Agency to consult with the Council before placing any building on the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

            It was reported that the second survey of all of Northern Ireland's building stock was currently underway, to update and improve on the first list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest which began in 1974 and was due to be completed in 2016.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed with the Agency’s proposals to list the following buildings:

·        1 Sans Souci Lane, Belfast, BT9 5QY;

·        3 Sans Souci Lane, Belfast, BT9 5QY;

·        NI Regional War Room, Belfast, BT9 6RB;

·        The Crags, 29 Newforge Lane, Belfast, BT9 5NU;

·        12 St. Johns Avenue, Belfast, BT7 3JE;

·        40 St. Johns Park, Belfast, BT7 3JF;

·        4 Knockbreda Park, Belfast, BT6 0HB;

·        16 Knockbreda Park, Belfast, BT6 0HB;

·        46 Hampton Park, Belfast, BT7 3JP; and

·        28 Florenceville Drive, Belfast, BT7 3GY.

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       To update the Members on progress with the new Belfast Local Development Plan (LDP) and to review the timetable for the adoption of the LDP.

1.2       The City Council published its agreed timetable for the preparation and adoption of the new LDP in June 2016 following consultation with the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) and the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). A summary of this initial timetable is attached at Appendix 1. The Council has completed the Preferred Options Paper (POP) stage and work is currently ongoing in preparing the Draft Plan Strategy.

1.3       In response to the early engagement, additional detailed studies to support the required evidence base for the new LDP were approved and are nearing completion. The requirement to carry out these additional complex pieces of work has impacted on the work programme and there has been some slippage in the originally approved timetable. In addition, we are advised by the Planning Appeals Commission that the Independent Examination of the LDP, at both formal stages, could take approximately one year and this has further implications for the current approved LDP timetable.    

1.4       It has been agreed with DfI that the LDP timetable will be kept under review and this report proposes to formally revise and update the timetable to reflect progress and projected timeframes. As part of the review the consultation timeframes outlined in the approved Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) have been reassessed in relation to the re-consultation aspects of the LDP process. This report also seeks approval to make minor revisions to the SCI for submission to the DfI for approval in advance of formal amendment to the published document.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       It is recommended that the Committee:

·        notes the updates set out in the report;

·        agrees the revisions to the LDP timetable as set out in 3.7 and Appendix 2; and

·        agrees the amendments to the SCI consultation periods as set out in paragraphs 3.10 to 3.11.

3.0       Main Report

3.1       The approved LDP Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and Timetable were published in June 2016 and these set out the consultation arrangements and timeframes associated with the key stages in the LDP process. The test of soundness for the LDP includes consideration of adherence to the SCI and agreed timetable. 

3.2       The currently approved timetable (Appendix 1) covers the full plan-making cycle. It was agreed with the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) in accordance with planning legislation on the basis that it would be kept under review. There are regulatory provisions to allow the Council to revise both the timetable and the SCI in response to changes in the anticipated timeline for LDP preparation. 

3.3       Delays were encountered in the preparation and publication of the Preferred Options Paper (POP), which was published several months later than the approved timetable. The preparatory work for the Draft Plan Strategy has required the commissioning of additional detailed studies,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

            The Committee noted that the Principal Planning Officer, Dermot O’Kane, had been invited to join a research delegation to Curitiba, Brazil by Queens University Belfast and Belfast Healthy Cities as part of the Healthy Urban Living and Ageing in Place Project, and that the costs associated with the visit would be met by Queen’s University Belfast.

(Councillor McAteer, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The Chairperson informed the Committee that a second request to speak had been received from Mr. D. Mullholland, an objector, citing exceptional circumstances and a new request had also been received from Mr. B. Warrington. The Committee agreed not to receive either of the deputations as it did not consider the circumstances to be exceptional.

The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 17th October, given the issues which had been raised regarding car parking, scale, massing and overdevelopment of the site, it had 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 proposal at first hand.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Nicholl who outlined a range of objections to the case officer’s recommendation for approval. She suggested that the proposal had significant opposition from local residents which included difficulty in exiting the street in rush hour due to traffic and car queues, was out of character with the area and would overshadow the rest of the street. She inferred that the proposal would increase traffic by over 40 percent and suggested that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3, as it would be incompatible with access, movement and parking. She advised that consideration should be also given to the impact the proposal might have on car parking and traffic of the surrounding streets. She explained that access was already difficult for large vehicles, such as bin lorries, and the site was not ideal for heavier traffic. She suggested that the proposal would be ten times the size of any other building in the street, it would comprise 10 percent of the total land in the street but would house over thirty percent of the total number of residents in the street.

She stated that the proposal was contrary to PPS 11 – planning waste management as it would increase the risk of flooding. She advised that residents were concerned that the development would introduce a security risk for children playing, a loss of privacy, impact on the Townscape character and reduce property values, for those reasons, she suggested that the Committee should refuse the application.

The case officer provided an overview of the report. During points of clarification, the case officer confirmed that Transport NI had been satisfied with the application and confirmed that adequate access had been proposed.

            Proposal

            Moved by Councillor McDonough-Brown and

            Seconded by Councillor Armitage,

That the Committee, agrees to refuse the application on the grounds that it does not meet Policy AMP 2 - Access to Public Roads, as outlined in Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking, in that the proposal would prejudice road safety and significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic, together with the nature and scale of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

(Councillor McDonough-Brown had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The case officer advised that planning permission was sought for a temporary change of use of a former print hall to an event space for a two-year period. During the course of consultation, this description had been changed to one year to ensure compatibility with potential future developments.

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

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of the conditions.

(Councillor McAteer returned to the Committee table at this point.)

            The case officer advised that the initial condition had required that the appropriate legislative procedures for the approved loading bay on Nelson Street were successfully completed prior to the commencement of the development on site. The applicant had requested that the condition was amended to allow work to commence prior to these legislative procedures being completed, and the procedures had now been completed prior to the occupation of the building. He advised that Department for Infrastructure -  Roads Unit, had no objections to the proposal and had requested that the wording of the condition be amended as follows:

·        The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or otherwise become operational until the appropriate legislative procedures for the loading bay on Nelson Street have been successfully completed.

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