Agenda item

            (Councillor Magee declared an interest and left the room whilst this item was under discussion.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 13th November, before presentation of the applications had commenced, it had deferred consideration so that the Committee could undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site.

            The case officer outlined the details of the three linked applications for the site.  She explained that the application sought the demolition of 29 Balmoral Avenue and buildings adjacent to and surrounding the listed King’s Hall.  The proposals included the restoration and refurbishment of the King’s Hall building, the creation of a new floorspace within it, and the construction of a two storey side extension to facilitate a primary healthcare centre.  The Committee was advised that an alteration of the Balmoral Avenue access was sought, a repositioned main access onto the Lisburn Road, an internal access road, surface level car parks, public realm and landscaping works and associated works, including boundary treatment.

            She drew the Committee’s attention to the main issues of consideration which were outlined within the report.

            The Committee was advised that three letters of support and sixteen letters of objection had been received before the publication of the Committee report, with another nine letters of support and one letter of objection having been received since its publication. 

            The Committee noted a late objection which had outlined the following issues:

·        traffic congestion on Balmoral Avenue and Lisburn Road,

·        responding to emergency and out of hours calls would be challenging,

·        centralisation of primary care and nursing services was detrimental to local communities; and

·        the development was not supported by the Commissioner of primary care services and was counter strategic to the implementation of the Bengoa recommendations.

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

            The case officer explained that the consultees were content with the proposals, subject to the conditions which were set out within the report.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Attwood.  He explained that he was a member of the Belfast Local Commissioning Group and that he had concerns about the centralisation of a number of GP practices in south Belfast as a result of the proposals.  He expressed concerns about the withdrawal of GP services from areas such as Sandy Row, Seymour Hill and the Lower Lisburn Rd and stated that this would be detrimental to the health and care of residents in those areas.  He stated that the Health and Social Care Board was unlikely to be able to fund the relocation of those GP practices.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. K. McCabe and Ms. A. Millar, NIPSA.  Mr. McCabe stated that he had concerns with the possible relocation of GP practices from areas of social deprivation to the King’s Hall site, as it would leave those areas with no local health services.  Ms. Millar added that she believed there to be flooding issues within the site and stated that she felt that the masterplan for the entire site should be considered before making a decision on the three applications.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. M. Gordon, Turley, Mr. J. Compton, advisor to the applicant, and Ms. K. McShane, Transport Consultant.

            In response to the queries raised by objectors regarding the phased approach to the development of the site, Mr. Gordon explained that it was considered appropriate due to the size and scale of the site.  He advised the Committee that the three applications related to Phase 1 of the development and that it would not prejudice the redevelopment of the remainder of the site.

            Mr. Compton stated that there were no plans for the Sandy Row GP Practice to move to the King’s Hall development.  He added that there were no private facilities planned for the site, and that Land and Property Services determined the rental value for GP practices.  He advised the Committee that health and social care hubs were crucial in fulfilling the aims of the Bengoa Report.

            In response to questions from Members regarding the impact of higher traffic volume surrounding the site, Ms. McShane explained that a detailed transport assessment had been carried out for both the wider site and for the Phase 1 applications. She confirmed that the implications from those assessments had been taken on board in the design of the access points for the site.

            In response to a Member’s question, the case officer clarified that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had not been required for the three applications but that an EIA would be required for the wider site, which would be brought before the Committee at a later date.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control clarified that, on balance, the application was considered acceptable in terms of its community benefits and the wider public interest.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor McAteer

Seconded by Councillor Carson,

      That applications LA04/2018/0040/F and LA04/2018/0047/DCA be refused on the grounds of the unjustified demolition of No. 29 Balmoral Avenue, which was contrary to Policy BH14 of PPS6.

            On a vote by show of hands, four Members voted for the proposal and seven against and it was declared lost.

            The case officer’s recommendation to approve applications LA04/2018/0040/F and LA04/2018/0047/DCA was then put to the Committee, when seven Members voted in favour and four against and it was declared carried. 

            Thereafter, the Committee granted approval to the application LA04/2018/0048/LBC.