Agenda item

(Councillor Nicholl had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

            The Committee considered the application for the demolition of an existing vacant three storey building on the site (under accompanying application LA04/2017/2783/DCA) and the erection of a 16 storey residential building comprising of 90 units (30 x one bed and 60 x two bed), ancillary ground floor uses including management suite, café, servicing (refuse/recycling/cycle storage/general storage), plant room, substation and associated public realm works.

            The Development Engagement Manager informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following points of objection had been submitted:

·         The impact of a 19 storey building in a conservation area;

·         The impact on the setting of St. Anne’s Cathedral and Library Service Head Quarters, which were listed buildings;

·         The height would set a precedent for tall buildings in city centre;

·         The proposal was contrary to Planning Policy Statement 6 and it would not respect the 3 storey height of adjoining buildings;

·         Questioned if consultation had been carried out with other environment and heritage bodies;

·         Questioned what comments the conservation officer and urban design officer had made in relation to the proposal as they had not been contained in the Development Management Report;

·         The demolition of a building sympathetic to height and scale of conservation area, and replacement with a 16 storey building was contrary to policy;

·         Suggested there were other sites within/ near city centre, outwith conservation areas and away from listed buildings that were more suited to high-rise development; and

·         The proposed building would be inappropriate to the genius loci of the surrounding area.

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

            He advised that a consultation response had also been received from Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Roads on 10th October which suggested that 25-45 car parking spaces were required and highlighted the subsequent impact on amenity of local residents and businesses.  However, a meeting had taken place on 15th October between DfI Roads, Officers and the applicant in which a 5 year travel card pack for residents to use public transport had been proposed, together with the submission of a travel plan. He advised that, on that basis, DfI Roads would withdraw their requirement for on-site parking. He explained that DfI Roads agreement on this needed to be confirmed in writing and the requirements would need to be secured if the proposal was approved.

            He pointed out that a condition regarding the proposed Public Realm Works would also be applied, which required proposed public realm improvement works in the vicinity of the site to be completed prior to occupation of the first residential unit, if the proposal was approved.

            He informed the Committee that the agent had also submitted a briefing statement to the Committee, however, all information had previously been included within supporting documents submitted to the Council during the processing of the planning application.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. D. Flinn, representing the Belfast Civic Trust in objection to the proposal. He raised concerns in relation to the height of the proposal in the conservation area and the proposed materials and its contrast to the rest of the conservation area. He suggested that the proposal would, if approved, set a precedent in the area and be in breach of CC013 Policy as set out in BMAP. He suggested also that the tall building examples given in the case officer’s presentation weren’t logical as they were located outside of the conservation area. He pointed out that, paragraph 9.23 of the case officer’s report stated a ‘red bricked finish’, however, the building proposed would be white. He questioned paragraph 9.38 of the case officer’s report which stated ‘the vertical emphasis’ and its relationship to the Education and Library Board (ELB) building which would be 32m higher and suggested that the comparisons were challengeable. He suggested that the Council should preserve the area, the proposal was contrary to policy and would interfere with the sustainable economic benefits of the conservation area.

            The Committee received a representation from Mr. M. Gordon, Mr. S. Tyler and Mr. S. Levrant representing the applicant. They raised the following points, in support of the application:

·         The proposal would bring investment to the area;

·         The proposal would assist the Belfast agenda as it would provide diverse housing and increase the city centre population;

·         The proposal would balance heritage and each application should be considered on its own merits;

·         The proposal was designed to be a bespoke response to the location;

·         BMAP predated the University decision in relation to transforming the area;

·         The proposal would strengthen the character of the area and balance the dominance to the roads;

·         The proposal would add to the cluster of tall buildings and would be set back from the ELB building;

·         The design was an elegant scheme and proposed to use cladded brick, aluminium and glass with active entrances and retail/cafe space on the ground floor; and

·         Suggested a Travel Plan and Ticket Scheme for residents to use Public Transport as no car parking had been proposed.

            During points of clarification, the agents explained the travel ticket scheme, the viability of the proposal, the height of the building, cycle provision and potential public realm enhancement.

            During discussion, the Director also clarified the responses from the Urban Design Officer and the Conservation Officer. He also advised that an approach to how residents with disabilities could be accommodated in relation to the travel package could also be considered as part of the aforementioned discussions on the travel plan.  

            After discussion, 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, subject to clarification of the consultation response from DfI Roads, satisfactory amendments to the design of the public realm enhancements, the submission of a satisfactory travel plan and securing travel cards for five years. The Committee also noted that the Department for Infrastructure would be notified.

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

(The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes.)