Agenda item

            The Divisional Solicitor advised the Committee that, as there was not a quorum of Members present who had also been in attendance for the initial presentation of the application at the meeting on 12th November, the Committee could either suspend paragraph 21 of the Committee’s Operating Protocol, namely, that “Members must be present for the entire item, including the officer’s introduction and update; otherwise they cannot take part in the debate or vote on that item” or, given that all speakers were present, that the Case officer could present the application to the Committee in its totality, in order that a determination could be made.

            The Committee agreed that the Case officer should present the entire application again in order that a decision could be made on the application.

            The Case officer provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application at Kings Works.

            He outlined the key issues which had been considered in the assessment of the proposed development, including the acceptability of a storage and distribution facility on the site, scale, massing and design, the impact on built and archaeological heritage, contaminated land, flooding and traffic and parking.

            He advised the Committee that the site was located within an established industrial area within the wider Titanic Quarter, which formed part of the mixed use Titanic Quarter zoning.  He explained that the proposed storage and distribution use was appropriate to the area.  He highlighted to the Members that the main distribution building was smaller than the existing industrial building on the site by approximately 3,000m² and was 1metre lower in height and would therefore have no greater impact on the setting of nearby listed structures and monuments.

            The Committee was advised that, given the scale of the existing building on the site and its potential to accommodate an industrial use, together with consideration of the applicant’s Transport Assessment, it was considered that, on balance, there would not be detrimental impact on the existing road infrastructure.

            The Case officer outlined that DAERA, DFI Roads, Rivers Agency, NI Water and the Health and Safety Executive had offered no objection to the proposals.  He explained that a response was still outstanding from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners.  He advised the Members that, as detailed in the Late Items pack, Environmental Health had responded with a number of conditions.  He explained that, in the event of an approval, the conditions would be added to the decision notice.  He advised that no third party objections had been received.       

            He reminded the Committee that consideration of the application had been deferred at its meeting on Tuesday, 12th November, in order to allow further information to be circulated to Members, specifically the response from RPS to the Department for Infrastructure’s (DfI) Consultation response, dated 27th September 2019.  The Members noted that the information had since been circulated and was in front of the Committee for its consideration in conjunction with the original case officer’s report.  He explained that the recommendation remained as an approval, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. B. Kelly, Turley, and Mr. C. O’Hara, Technical Director at RPS, to the meeting.  They welcomed the Planning Department’s recommendation to approve the application.  They reiterated that the application complied with planning policies and that no third party objections had been received.  Mr. Kelly advised that the proposal would bring additional employment to the area.  They advised the Committee that a robust traffic assessment had taken place as part of the application.

(Councillor Hanvey joined the meeting at this point

and did not participate in the vote)

            A Member queried how DFI Roads’ response had changed from considering the application unacceptable to then being acceptable. 

            The Committee was advised that Mr. L. Walsh, Department for Infrastructure, was in attendance and he was welcomed to the meeting.  He explained that DFI had initial concerns regarding the application and that there had been a significant engagement with the applicant and agent.  He stated that DFI challenged the modelling work, the departure profile and the modal split and that it was a rigorous process.  He advised the Members that DFI Roads was now content that there was capacity at the M3 junction, even at peak times.

            In response to a Member’s query, Mr. Walsh confirmed that, if the application was to be approved at the site, the Practical Reserve Capacity would still be just under 10%.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report, subject to resolving any outstanding issues in relation to archaeology and built heritage on the site and providing the necessary remediation for ground gases within the site, and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.