Agenda item

            The Principal Planning officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items pack.  He explained that the Historic Environment Division (HED) had submitted its formal response to the application.  The Committee was advised that HED (Historic Buildings) had confirmed that it was content subject to conditions.  HED (Historic Monuments) had also requested a Vibration Monitoring Statement and a Scheduled Monument Consent.  The Principal Planning officer explained that they would be secured via condition, as stated in the Case officer’s report.  The Committee was also advised that the DfI had since submitted its formal response whereby it had no objection, subject to the addition of four conditions.

            He provided the Committee with the details of the application on a site which was located within an established industrial/commercial area within the wider Titanic Quarter. 

            He advised the Members that previous permissions on the site (Z/2010/2864/O) had established the principle of development and a hotel use at the location.  The site benefited from being part of the wider Phase 2 Concept Masterplan, where the Design Principles had included a range of parameters for the particular site, including gross floor space, storeys and height.  The Members were advised that the proposal was approximately 2.2metre higher than the 21.5metres set out in the masterplan.

            On balance, he explained that, given the quality of the proposal and design cues which had bene taken from the nearby listed Harland and Wolff Drawing Offices, accompanied by the fact that the Historic Environment Division (HED) had no objections given recent changes to the roofscape, officers considered the scale and massing of the proposal acceptable.

            The Deputy Chairperson welcomed Ms. S. Murphy, agent, Mr. S. Miskelly, Architect, and Mr. C. O’Hara, Transport Consultant.  Ms. Murphy advised the Committee that:

·        the JMK group had extensive experience in investing in hotels across the UK and Ireland;

·        the Titanic Quarter was home to three of Northern Ireland’s top visitor attractions;

·        the proposed site for the hotel was opposite the number one attraction, “Titanic Belfast”, which had attracted 840,000 visitors last year, and which was a 13% increase from the previous year;

·        it would be a family friendly hotel;

·        the final designs were a result of collaborative discussions with planners, HED, the Urban Design officer and Titanic Foundation Ltd; and

·        the application would assist in providing the necessary infrastructure to support the growth in the tourism sector.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding the travel arrangements for the site, Mr. O’Hara stated that, based on the evidence available, they were still below the trigger level as per the original transport masterplan for the area which had been agreed with DFI Roads service at the time, in 2008.  He advised the Committee that the masterplan contained a number of trips associated with each different land use, including agreed trip rates, modal split, car occupancy, and that they were carried through each application for the site.

            In response to a further transport question, the Principal Planning officer clarified to the Committee that officers had to make determinations with the evidence which was provided to them from statutory agencies.

            A Member stated that they would have liked to have seen the Computer Generated Images (CGI) from a wider range of angles, including one showing the building from Queen Street.

            A further Member added that the Committee had undertaken a pre-emptive site visit to the area and that it had been useful in providing context for the application.

            The Committee granted 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.