Agenda item

            (Councillors Armitage, Campbell and Canavan took no part in the discussion or decision-making of the application since they had not been in attendance at the meeting on 11th December, 2018, when it had originally been considered.)

            The Development Engagement Manager reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 11th December, it had granted approval to applications LA04/2018/0040/F, LA04/2018/0047/DCA and LA04/2018/0048/LBC.

            The Committee was advised that, after the meeting of 11th December, an issue had been raised in relation to the stated position of the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) with regards to the above mentioned applications.

            The City Solicitor, in accordance with Section 15 of the Committee’s Operating Protocol, had agreed to refer the above mentioned applications back to the Committee.

            The Development Engagement Manager clarified to the Committee that a statement within the case officer’s report of 11th December, in addition to advice from officers at that meeting, had been based on information provided by the agent for the application.

            He advised the Committee that, as it had approved the applications at its previous meeting, consideration should focus on the issues raised within the addendum report.  He explained that, while the HSCB’s position was a relevant contextual consideration, it was not considered to hold determining weight in the planning process.  The Members were advised that, as set out in detail in the report, the proposals were considered acceptable in land-use planning terms and would bring about substantial community benefits.  He added that it was not for the Planning Authority to pre-empt how public health policy was applied and that issues relating to funding, and the HSCB’s position on the relocation of GP surgeries, were subject to separate processes outside planning.  As such, he advised the Committee that the officers’ recommendation to approve the applications remained.

            In relation to how the Council had verified what HSCB’s position was, the Development Engagement Manager drew the Committee’s attention to a letter which had been circulated to Members as a late item, which had been received from the Health and Social Care Board earlier that day.

            The Committee received representation from Councillor Attwood.  He advised the Committee that he was a member of the Belfast Local Commissioning Group and that, after the Planning Committee’s meeting of 11th December, he had raised concerns with the City Solicitor relating to the HSCB’s position on the applications for the King’s Hall site.  He explained to the Committee that, in terms of openness and transparency, it was important that the Committee had the full information in order to make its decision. 

            He advised the Committee that:

·        the case officer’s report, in addition to comments made by officers at the meeting, stated that the HSCB had “confirmed its support (for the proposals) subject to funding being available”;

·        that information had been submitted by the applicant’s agent, Turley, and had not been independently verified with the HSCB;

·        he believed that statement to be incorrect and had since sought clarification from the HSCB;

·        the HSCB, in a letter dated 3rdJanuary, confirmed that it had not written to the Council, nor the applicant, to confirm its support for the aforementioned applications;

·        it was regrettable that information which had been submitted by the applicant’s agent had been relied upon, instead of officers having sought confirmation of the HSCB’s position directly; and

·        the letter which Turley had submitted to the Planning Service, dated 9th January, advising that four GP practices in south Belfast had submitted Options Appraisals to the HSCB to potentially relocate to the King’s Hall site was based on information from 2016, and that at least two GP Practices were seeking to upgrade their current premises and were not seeking to move.

            The Committee then received representation from Mr. M. Gordon, Turley, Mr. M. Kelly, a consultant employed by the applicant and a former Senior Officer in Primary Care at HSCB, and Ms. K. McShane, Transport Consultant. 

            The representatives outlined to the Committee:

·        that the letter from Turley, dated 9th January, set out the position of the HSCB as they understood it and that it included reference to the process of patient consultation, along with a number of caveats;

·        four GP practices had submitted Options Appraisals regarding relocation to the King’s Hall site and that it was the first step in the process of relocation;

·        the HSCB would not be expected to explicitly comment on the planning application, as it was not within its remit; and

·        the application still satisfied the relevant planning policy tests and therefore they felt there was no reason to reassess the weight that the Committee had attached to those considerations.

            After further discussion, the case officer’s recommendation to approve application LA04/2018/0040/F, with the final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control, was put to the Committee, when four Members voted in favour and three against and it was declared carried. 

            The case officer’s recommendation to approve application LA04/2018/0047/DCA, with the final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control, was put to the Committee, when four Members voted in favour and three against and it was declared carried. 

            The case officer’s recommendation to approve application LA04/2018/0048/LBC, with the final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control, was put to the Committee, when four Members voted in favour and three against and it was declared carried.