Agenda item

            The case officer reminded the Committee that it had agreed to defer consideration of the application at its meeting on 12th March, so that the Committee could undertake a site visit in order to acquaint Members with the site.  She explained that the site visit had taken place on 21st March.

            The Committee was provided with an overview of the principal aspects of the application and the issues which had been considered in its assessment against planning policies.  The case officer explained that the site was located within the development limits for Belfast in both the BUAP (2001) and the draft BMAP (2015).  She explained that both the church and hall buildings were listed.

            The Members were advised that the principle of the proposal was acceptable and that the re-use of the Listed Building in the form and detail proposed was acceptable to the Historic Environment Division (HED).

            The case officer explained that 63 objections had been received, the majority of which related to issues with parking and noise issues and, following the publication of last month’s report, an additional five written objections had been received, all citing the lack of parking within the development.

            The case officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items pack, where the applicant had submitted a Travel Plan for the application on 2nd April.  The Members were advised that DfI Roads had reviewed the Travel Plan and had recommended a condition, which included targets and an annual review, to be agreed with the Planning Service prior to the development becoming operational.

            The Committee was advised that DfI Roads had been consulted on two separate occasions in relation to the application and that it was content and had no objections in respect of the impact of the proposal on existing parking provision.

            She confirmed to the Committee that Environmental Health had cited no concerns with noise, nuisance or disturbance but, as detailed in the addendum report, had submitted its final response to the consultation recommending seven conditions, if the application was to be approved.

            The Committee received representation from Mr. S. de Faoite who explained that he was in attendance to raise concerns on behalf of local residents regarding the lack of parking facilities proposed at the site.  He made a number of points, which included:

·        while he appreciated that the proposal would bring a vacant, listed building back into use, he did not feel that the applicant had done enough in terms of addressing residents’ concerns in relation to parking;

·        residents in the surrounding streets already had regular occurrences of their bins not being collected due to a high density of parked cars blocking streets and alleyways;

·        there was only one entrance/exit at the proposed site, onto the Ormeau Road, which has a bus lane – this would create further congestion on an already busy road; and

·        that the bus route has been suggested as a potential glider route in the future.

            The Committee then received representation from Councillor Boyle, who spoke in support of the application.  He advised the Committee that:

·        he welcomed the application, in that it would bring a listed building back into use, which had been vacant since the mid-1980s;

·        the applicants were professional operators of licensed premises;

·        the application should be approved as it would create employment and increase the rate base for the Council; and

·        while he understood the parking concerns raised, he didn’t believe the application would make the parking issues any worse than they currently were.

            The Committee received representation from the agents for the application,        Ms. S. Tinsley, Turley, Mr. L Power, Architect, and Mr. D. Fletcher, Traffic Consultant.

            Ms. Tinsley and Mr. Power informed the Committee that:

·        the heritage-led project would secure the future of a vacant, Grade B1 listed building which was on the Buildings At Risk register;

·        all statutory consultees had responded without objection;

·        amendments had been made by the applicant in response to feedback, in order to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties by reducing the scale and massing of the original proposals, from 21 bedrooms to 18;

·        the Travel Plan would be conditioned; and

·        it was in the wider public interest to regenerate the buildings.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding how the number of car parking spaces required for the site had been determined, Mr. Fletcher confirmed to the Members that a Trip Rate Information Computer (TRIC) was a long-established system which collated real time information for similar sized developments throughout the UK.  He explained that, while Planning Parking Standards would suggest the provision of 104 parking spaces, DfI Roads had agreed to the use of TRIC trip generation analysis to determine the parking requirement for the proposed development, which had determined that 27 vehicles would require parking at the site at any one time.  He confirmed to the Committee that the parking survey had illustrated on-street availability well in excess of 27 on each survey time in the catchment area.

            During discussion, the Traffic Consultant confirmed that the Travel Plan applied to both the staff and guests of the development.  He confirmed that public transport information would be provided to guests at the time of booking. 

            In response to a Member’s query regarding the nearby Church car park, which involved crossing the Ormeau Road, Ms. Tinsley confirmed to the Committee that the applicant had engaged with the Church to explore the possibility of hotel guests using its carpark, but that it was being explored in good faith and did not form part of the Planning application.

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that Mr. L. Walsh, DfI Roads, was in attendance and he was welcomed to the meeting.  Mr Walsh advised the Committee that the bus lanes on the Ormeau Road were operational city-bound in the mornings and country-bound in the evenings.  He explained that Translink operated 74 metro services along the Ormeau Road each day.  He advised the Members that DfI Roads had determined that there were adequate pedestrian crossings close to the site and that there was sufficient on-street parking in the vicinity.

            A Member stated that they had been advised by the PSNI that parking partially on the pavement was illegal but that it was too difficult to monitor, particularly in narrow streets such as those off the Ormeau Road. 

            In response to a Member’s query as to whether the applicant would be required to retain and restore the stained glass and the interior staircase, the case officer confirmed to the Committee that they would be conditioned and phased as a priority.

            The case officer confirmed, in response to further questions from a Member regarding deliveries and glass collections at the hotel site, that a number of conditions would be added if Planning Permission was granted, as detailed in the addendum report, and that the Management Plan would also ensure good neighbourliness.  The Divisional Solicitor added that the Management Plan for the development could be flexible to take future considerations into account.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Johnston, and

            Seconded by Councillor Hutchinson,

      That the Committee grants approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

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