Agenda item

            The Committee was reminded that the application had been on the agenda and case officer reports had been published in March and April, 2017, however, the application had not been presented at either of the Committee Meetings.

            The Committee was also reminded that, at its meeting on 13th April, before presentation of the application commenced, the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the ratification of the Gasworks Masterplan, the relationship between the proposed tower block and the impact on the surrounding housing, and consistency in the approach to major developments, had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following additional information had been received from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which raised the following points:

·        high social housing need in the local area (104 applicants on waiting list, 84 in housing stress and 20 allocations over the previous year (September, 2016);

·        the site was located within a larger social housing zoning; and

·        BMAP was the primary consideration in determining planning applications unless material considerations dictated otherwise.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack. 

            She presented the application and highlighted that further consideration had been given to the application in the second addendum report, in light of additional and changes to the material circumstances.

            She concluded that the public consultation exercise had been conducted in line with legislation and advised that the proposal for an office development at this location was recommended for approval.

            The Chairperson advised that deputations who wished to speak on the application should deal with the technical aspects and planning considerations of the application.

            The Committee received a representation from Councillor Hargey. She outlined a range of objections to the case officer’s recommendation for approval. She suggested that the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) should be a material consideration as it was the most recent planning document and zoned the entire site for housing, and applications for the site should not be considered until an overall masterplan had been agreed and adopted. She also suggested that there was a high need for social housing in the area and 86 families were in housing stress, mainly needing three bedroom houses. She raised concerns regarding land which had been zoned for housing being changed for business interests, and suggested that there was a lack of respect for inner city communities and their needs.

            During points of clarification, she also suggested that there had been disparity between how the Committee dealt with sites zoned for housing, especially when the sites were located in the City centre.

            The Committee also received representation from Ms. N. McFall, representing the Markets Development Association (MDA), and Ms. C. Bailey, MLA.

            Ms. McFall outlined a range of objections to the proposal. She questioned the pre application community consultation report and whether regular meetings with stakeholders, which had been stated in the applicants report, had taken place. She suggested that there was a sustained housing need in the area and that as the site was zoned for housing under BMAP, it should still carry weight and was a material consideration in the decision making process. She suggested that there should have been meaningful discussion with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) in regards to the development of housing on the site and there had been a lack of consistency with decisions made by the Planning Committee. She also suggested that the Committee should refuse the application to allow time for the Gas Works Masterplan to be agreed by all those affected.

            Ms. Bailey, MLA explained her objections to the proposal, as follows: 

·        The scale, massing and design of the proposal;

·        Issues with the land height and the potential for the buildings to intrude on the  surrounding residential properties;

·        Loss of light and dominance - The case officers report had already identified this as a problem and would create a barrier;

·        Suggested the removal of existing walls instead of building higher ones;

·        Issues with the access road and its potential to create an infrastructure barrier for the residents and community; and

·        Suggested that the Committee should support the inner city communities’ views and refuse the proposal, as without a masterplan being agreed for the other plots of the site, she believed it would be the wrong way to start the development.

            During points of clarification, Ms. McFall also suggested that she was not aware of the existence of the Gasworks Residency Committee and Gasworks Security Forum which had been stated in the applicants report regarding the pre application community consultation. 

            At this point, the City Solicitor clarified that the adoption of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP), which had been referred to by the objectors, had been challenged by the Council in respect of a Sprucefield Development related issue. He stated that the Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) was out of date, and BMAP continued to have significant weight in terms of planning considerations due to it having undergone a public inquiry, a number of internal department processes and was at an advanced stage. He explained that there had been a Joint Ministerial Statement on the matter, which indicated that the further stages that BMAP had reached in the process prior to adoption, the more weight it should be given, in terms of planning decisions. He advised that this position was still relevant, therefore, BMAP was of significant weight in the Committee’s decision making process and that only one aspect of BMAP was contentious.

            The Committee also received representation from Councillor Craig who outlined a range of support for the application which included investment, job creation, together with rent and rates income for the Council. He suggested that the length of time it had taken to consider the application at the Planning Committee would create fear for further investment in the city and was disappointed it had taken so long. He suggested the proposal would create Grade A office space which would occur without the need for public funding and the developer had a prospective tenant for the proposal. He suggested that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had suggested that this particular site might be too contaminated to build housing on.

            The Committee also received representation from Mr. C. Bryson, Strategic Planning, acting on behalf of the applicant and Mr. N. McLaren, the applicant, representing Inislyn Limited.

            Mr. McLaren outlined a range of support for the application. He suggested that the proposal would generate revenue for the City and that the development company had a long standing and successful relationship with the Gasworks site and the Council, having previously developed the Radisson Blue Hotel and the Lighthouse Building on the site, together with two carparks. He suggested they were committed to working alongside the Council as they developed the Masterplan for the area. He suggested that the proposal would provide high quality office and working space for approximately 550 people, during construction approximately 50 Construction jobs, and generate approximately £750,000 via various income streams. He suggested that the applicant was in the final stages of securing two prospective tenants. He suggested that they were local developers who take pride in the projects they undertook and this proposal would enhance the area. He confirmed that the Developer Contribution proposed for this development included a combination of physical works and community initiatives.

            Mr. Bryson outlined his support for the planning officer’s recommendation to approve the proposal. He suggested that it was in keeping with the surrounding land uses and character of the area, was in full compliance with the relevant area plan and other material considerations. He suggested that after it had been adopted, BMAP had been quashed, and it could not be a material consideration in the determination process and the court judgement was clear on that point. The site was zoned for offices in the last adopted plan, BUAP, as it was in a draft BMAP in 2004. He suggested there had been no objections from the closest 8 houses on McAuley Street to the application site.  He suggested that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive consultation response of 9th June, 2016 made it clear that the high levels of contamination associated with the previous land uses had meant that other recent social housing schemes had incurred high costs and led to difficulties delivering housing in the area. He suggested that there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity and the design had included obscure glazing and planting which would ensure there would be no overlooking.

            During points of clarification, Mr. McLaren suggested that the total proposed investment would be £12-13 million for the office element and confirmed that the consultation groups referred to in their report were the Gasworks Residents Committee, (attendees included Business Tenants of the Gasworks), and the Gasworks Community Forum (attendees included commercial tenants, PSNI, along with local community groups). He suggested further that the MDA had been invited to this Forum, however, did not attend the meetings. He also suggested that his comments regarding the legalities of which area plan was relevant to the application were different from the Council’s.

            During discussion, the case officer explained that a Pre Application Notice had been served by the Council for a mixed used development which included offices, housing and retail on the remainder of the land. She provided an overview of the statutory requirements of the consultation process and advised that a condition had been applied to the recommendation regarding the remediation of contamination at the site.

            The City Solicitor was requested to clarify his advice on the relevant Area Plan for the site. He advised that the BUAP was 16 years old, and the data that underpinned it was out of date. He reiterated that BMAP had to be given significant weight in terms of a planning decision, however, if there were circumstances when the Committee might wish to depart from policy, then the Committee was legally permitted to do so, as long as it gave appropriate reasons for its decision.

            During further discussion, the Director highlighted paragraph 19, as outlined in the case officer’s report, which stated that the Council had expressed a commitment, as of the Council Meeting on 3rd July, to move forward with an Outline Planning application for a comprehensive mixed use development for the lands, and a PAN had now been served to that affect. He advised that if approval was granted for the proposal, it would not prejudice the opportunity to deliver a master plan or the inclusion of residential use in the mixed use development.  

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Bunting, and

            Seconded by Alderman McGimpsey,

      That the Committee agrees to grant approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and, in accordance with Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, delegated power to the Director of Planning and Place, in conjunction with the City Solicitor, to enter into discussions with the applicant to explore the scope of any Planning Agreements which might be realised by way of developer contributions and, if so, to enter into such an Agreement on behalf of the Council and delegate power to the Director of Planning and Place for the final wording of the conditions.

            On a vote by show of hands eight Members voted for the proposal and five against and it was declared carried.

(The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes.)