Agenda item

            (Councillor Groogan declared an interest and advised the Committee that she wished to leave the Committee table and address the Committee, in objection to the application. After addressing the Committee, she did not participate in the discussion or the vote and left the room for the duration of the remainder of the item.)

            The Principal Planning officer clarified to the Members that there was an error in the report in that it was a local application, not a major, and so it would not attract a Developers Contribution in respect of Public Realm improvements. 

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items report.  He advised the Committee that, since the report had been published, a letter of support for the proposals to refurbish the listed building had been received from the Belfast Civic Trust.

            He also explained that a set of amended plans had been received from the agent, on 17th January, after a meeting had taken place between the applicant and an objector, the owners of the Warehouse building, immediately beside the site on James Street South.  The Members were advised that both neighbours and HED had been re-consulted on the updated plans.  He advised that further amended plans had then been submitted, on 22nd January, to remove the secondary access to the Lounge Bar on James Street South.  The amended plans also proposed that the function suite would now be on the fifth floor instead of the first floor.

            The Committee was further advised that, just before the Committee meeting had commenced, a letter had been received from the owners of the Warehouse Building, withdrawing their objection to both the Full and Listed Building Consent applications.

            The Committee was advised that the consultation response from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) had also been received after the report had been published.  The Principal Planning officer explained that their response stated that an Event Management Plan should be required for the application, as well as secure storage for bicycles.  He advised the Committee that it was the officer’s view that this was an unreasonable request, given that the site’s location and that there was an extant permission for a hotel on the site which did not have a requirement for an EMP.

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the key details of the application for the conversion to a 63 bed hotel with function space, bars and restaurants and a single storey rear extension.  The Members were advised that the Scottish Mutual Building was a red sandstone, Grade B1 Listed Building in the Linen Conservation Area.  He explained that it was located within the City Centre and within the Commercial District as defined in dBMAP.  He advised the Members that the applicant wished to amend the previously approved permission under LA04/2016/0688/F.

            He explained that the key issues in the consideration of the application included the principle of the proposal at the location, the impact on transport and other infrastructure, the impact on amenity and character of the area, the impact on the historical and architectural qualities of the listed building and other environmental matters.

            He explained that the application had been subject to an extensive assessment and a number of re-consultations with HED, in order to address a number of concerns which they had raised.  He outlined to the Committee that officers felt that the latest drawings went some way to address those concerns.  He advised that, on balance, officers considered the proposed alterations to be acceptable in that they would allow the conversion of the building to a hotel, thus securing the viable re-use of the vacant listed building, and securing its long term future.  He added that, if the Committee agreed to grant approval to the application, a condition would be included to incorporate DfI’s recommendation regarding secure cycle parking.

            The Committee was advised that an objection remained from the Historic Environment Division (HED), largely regarding the proposed use of dry-lining within the property.  HED had stated that the development was contrary to PPS6, and also objected to the proposed suspended ceiling on the ground floor. 

            The Principal Planning officer reminded the Committee that, given the objection from a statutory consultee, if the Committee was to grant approval to the Listed Building Consent (LBC) application, it would be referred to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI).  He advised the Members that the full application would be held until the DfI responded in relation to the LBC application.

            The Committee was advised that DAERA, NI Water, Environmental Health and the Conservation Officer had no objection to the proposals.

            The Deputy Chairperson welcomed Councillor Groogan to address the Committee.  She advised the Committee that:

·        she had concerns with the application as she did not believe the scheme to be heritage-led;

·        the use of dry-lining was contrary to Policy BH8 of PPS6;

·        dry-lining would put the building’s structural and architectural integrity at serious risk;

·        it was not an acceptable way to bring the building back into use;

·        that the conservation experts, HED, were against the use of dry-lining due to concerns with adequate ventilation for the building; and

·        attempts by the applicant/agent to emphasise the cost of removing the dry-lining which had already been installed were wrong given that the works were unauthorised.

(Councillor Groogan left the room at this point)

            The Deputy Chairperson then welcomed Mr. D. Morse, applicant, and Mr. S. Nicholson, architect, to the meeting.  Mr. Morse advised the Committee that:

·        they had made a number of changes in order to reflect the historic nature of the building, including that the function suite would be on the fifth floor;

·        the building had been subject to varying levels of intervention, including significant alterations to the ground floor and poor quality remodelling, which had compromised its historic significance;

·        they’d undertaken a Statement of Significance at the outset of the project, a document which set the baseline for how any proposals would be conceived, it took account of the historic context, historic and architectural interest, and the condition of the building, including the modern interventions;

·        the primary architectural interest was invested in its principal elevations, while its interior was conventional with a muted and underwhelming decor;

·        despite its poor condition, a number of significant interior features were identified for protection and led the design rationale for the remodelling, including the entrance lobby, terrazzo floors, fireplaces, cornicing and ceramic wall tiling;

·        the design had been subject to extensive consultation; and

·        they were confident that any outstanding issues could be discussed with HED.

            In response to questions from Members regarding the use of dry-lining and a suspended ceiling, Mr. Nicholson explained that it was important for both acoustic and fire regulation reasons.  He explained that no existing cornices or skirting would be removed, as they would be behind the dry-lining.

            In respect of the Service Delivery Management Plan, Mr. Morse advised that a meeting had taken place with DFI Roads whereby the issues had been largely been resolved.

            The Deputy Chairperson advised the Committee that Mr. B. McKervey, Historic Environment Division (HED), was in attendance to answer any questions from the Committee in relation to the application.

            In response to a Member’s question as to HED’s current objection, Mr McKervey explained that HED felt that there were lost opportunities in the redevelopment of the heritage building, particularly with regards to the dry-lining which would cover a lot of the detail.  He advised the Committee that the applicant had, slowly, gotten closer to what HED believed to be a better scheme.

            In response to a number of questions about the original internal doors, Mr. McKervey stated that the doors could be upgraded to meet modern day safety standards.   The agent advised the Committee that all of the original doors were on site but that a significant number were beyond repair.

            The Principal Planning officer then answered a number of further questions from Members.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding Health and Safety, the Divisional Solicitor advised the Committee that the Building Control Service would look at most of those issues during the consideration of the Entertainments Licence for the premises, which would go before the Licensing Committee.

Moved by Alderman Rodgers,

Seconded by Councillor Hussey

     That the Committee agrees to the officer’s recommendation, to approve the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions and to delegate power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions and to resolve any issues arising from the neighbour notification process in relation to the most recent amended plans and Revised Delivery and Service Management Plan.

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

(Councillor Maskey left the meeting at this point)