Agenda item

            The Committee was advised that a consultation request had been received from the Department for Infrastructure for the proposed application for a new integrated transport interchange which comprised a station concourse, 26 bus stands, 8 railway platforms, bus maintenance and parking, track and signalling enhancements, bus access bridge, cycle and taxi provision, car parking, new public square, public realm improvements, highway improvements, infrastructure improvements, temporary structures for bus operations during construction and temporary site construction compounds.

The case officer provided an overview of the response to the consultation request and informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following representation had been received from an objector:  

·        support for the retention of the Boyne Bridge within the proposed Transport Hub development;

·        that associating the new infrastructure with a historic structure would form an important link between the history of the place and its future; and

·        that Edinburgh Waverley Station was an example of the integration of changes in level and different ages of infrastructure.

He advised that correspondence had also been received from the Applicant’s agent which outlined the following points:

·        that Department for Infrastructure (DfI) had not raised any matters which would be considered to require a Section 76 agreement, with all matters being appropriately dealt with by way of planning conditions; and

·        that wider public benefits could either be secured by planning conditions or the acceptance that public commitment to the wider scheme and local initiatives should remove the need for any formal agreement in the form of Section 76.

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

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. B. Dickson BEM, representing Blackstaff Community Development Association and Boyne Bridge Defenders, and Mr. D. Hill, architect, Belfast Urban Studio, in objection to the application. Mr. Dickson suggested that the Boyne Bridge was of historical importance and it should not be destroyed. 

            Mr. Hill raised concerns regarding the current plans for the site. He stated that the proposed entrance door to the new station would be too far away from the City Centre and the walk to the station from the City Hall would involve crossing two major roads. He stressed the importance of the structure of the Boyne Bridge and advised that he had submitted plans to DfI and Translink which outlined an alternative vision which did not demolish the Boyne bridge, but used it as a canopy. He suggested that the Council should recommend to DfI that the proposal should undergo an Office of Government Commerce Gateway (OGC) Review and that the development of the current proposal would be a mistake.

            During points of clarification Mr. Hill suggested that engagement with Translink had been ongoing for 3 years and he had questioned the consultation process, suggested route and easy engineering solution for the new station with them. He suggested that the OGC was set up to improve the quality of large scale public building and that DfI were familiar with the OGC review process.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. C. Conway, Chief Executive Officer, representing Translink, and Ms. H. Harrison, representing Juno Planning. Mr. Conway advised that the proposed transport hub was a transport led regeneration project and that the consultation process had been delivered and the proposal had been approved by the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Finance.  He suggested that the proposal would bring social and economic benefits, connectivity, business, tourism, and growth of the transport system. He suggested that there had been substantial growth in public transport need and at peak times the Europa Bus Centre and Great Victoria railway station experienced high volumes of passengers, large queues and associated safety risks.

            In relation to the objector’s comments, he advised that there were a number of bridges documenting history in the area dating back to the 1600’s, such as the Saltwater Bridge and the proposal sought to preserve the remains of this in situ. He informed the Committee that the 1930’s Boyne Bridge had been assessed by the Department for Communities who had raised no objection to the development, however, the proposal intended to reuse and integrate elements of the Boyne Bridge into the new design such as the steel, lights and name plaques. He pointed out that the square at the front of the Transport Hub was expected to be named Saltwater Square. He highlighted that an experienced design team had considered a range of technical options for the Transport Hub, and the design was driven by engineering constraints. He suggested that the preferred option for the development would provide active frontage to Grosvenor Road and Durham Street, was based on bus and rail engineering and operability, together with the potential for regeneration, resilience and future proofing. He confirmed that these objectives could not be met, other than with the current proposed design and the removal of the Boyne Bridge. He advised that Translink had a commitment to work with the local community in terms to public realm works and landscaping.  He suggested that the plans for the Weavers Cross part of the development would offer a range of opportunities which included construction employment, training and apprenticeships. 

            During points of clarification, Mr. Conway advised that there were a number of engineering challenges on the site such as culverts, buildings in situ, railway safety requirements, together with technical challenges and regeneration considerations. He advised that Translink had worked closely with various community groups regarding the potential to regenerate the area and the naming of the square. In relation to the preservation of the Saltwater Bridge, he advised that a survey had been completed as far as possible, and an archaeological survey would be completed in the future. He also suggested that the proposed design had allowed for the potential for the electrification of trains in the future and space for a railway extension.

            During discussion, the Director reiterated that DfI would be responsible for determining the application and that the recommended response to the consultation had been outlined in the report as follows:

·        Further clarification was required regarding cycle and car parking. There was reference to a large surface car park which was marked as temporary, however, the Environmental Statement made reference to only a reduction of 21 spaces following completion. It was noted that that staff numbers were anticipated at 300 daily, staff parking was proposed at 90 spaces. Further clarification would be required on justification of this number as well as a parking plan to delineate where the spaces were and how the uses would be conditioned;

·        In addition, the Transport Plan compared existing and proposed parking spaces on site but there was repeated reference to parking at Central Station which it would not appear to be appropriate to use for a before and after analysis. Similarly, some of the modelling information referred to residential units which had not been included in this application;

·        In light of the scale of the proposed Station Square, the applicant should consider the inclusion of a larger amount of usable green space, as an integral part of its design;

·        In light of the scale of development and the context of the wider masterplan, a Section 76 agreement would be recommended to ensure that public realm, phasing, landscaping and parking were completed in the appropriate time and manner. In the absence of a legal agreement, the Council would recommend that a Phasing and Implementation Plan was required and conditioned to formalise the phasing plans as set out in 4.11 of Volume I of the Environmental Statement and other documents, and agreed prior to commencement; and

·        In light of the importance of the project in terms of employment creation, a Section 76 agreement would be recommended to leverage opportunities for Belfast City residents to benefit both from the construction jobs and long terms jobs that may come forward, working with development partners and local training groups in addition to the Council’s Belfast Works initiative. In the absence of a legal agreement, the Council would recommend that a plan be required and conditioned for submission to the Council outlining the applicant’s proposals for access to employment opportunities.

            During further discussion, a Member raised the potential for regeneration opportunities for the communities in the area and a direct resource for local communities to deal with issues such as disruption, transport, and business closures. A Member also suggested that a Section 76 agreement had the potential for supporting local regeneration such as business development, tourism initiatives, and tackling health inequalities, and that resources at a local level for the wider community via development contributions should be considered.

            The Committee noted the contents of the report and agreed to the submission of the Consultation Response to the Department for Infrastructure as outlined in the report (copy available on Modern.gov), with the addition of a paragraph highlighting the broader regeneration opportunities and resources for local communities which this development presented and calling for these to be considered as part of the recommended Section 76 agreement.