Agenda item

            The Planning Manager provided an overview of the application to the Committee. 

            He explained that officers were recommending refusal of the applications for the following six reasons:

1.     The proposed new build at the rear, by reason of its design, form and scale, would be over-dominant in relation to Wilton House and the adjacent terrace and would be detrimental to the street-scene;

2.     Insufficient evidence had been submitted detailing the current condition of the Listed building and survival of the historic fabric and how important features were to be conserved, reused and repaired. The proposal would therefore result in unacceptable harm to the Listed building’s essential character through potential loss of historic fabric and elements of significance;

3.     The proposed new build at the rear, by reason of its design, form and scale, would be over-dominant in relation to Wilton House and the adjacent terrace, to the detriment of the setting of surrounding Listed Buildings;

Furthermore, by reason of its design, form and scale of the new build, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

4.     The proposed development would be served by inadequate private and communal amenity space and would provide inadequate living conditions for future occupants;

5.     The proposed development would provide a highly unsatisfactory living environment for future occupants by reason of poor levels of light to the windows and rooms in the rear north facing elevation of Wilton House and south facing elevation of the new build at the rear, and in the inner courtyard; and

6.     The proposal provided inadequate covered bicycle parking spaces in a suitable location to off-set the absence of on-street vehicle parking provision, and, moreover, the application failed to demonstrate that adequate provision was made for disabled parking.

            A Member explained that he had concerns regarding the refusal reasons for the application.  He stated that, in relation to reasons 1 and 3, he felt that the new build element was not over dominant and was subservient; that, in relation to reason 2, this could be dealt with through conditions; that, in relation to reason 4, the vacant, city centre building should be brought back into use and that a balance had to be struck with nearby amenity spaces; that, in relation to reason 5, the applicant had changed the orientation of the windows to provide additional daylight; and that, in relation to reason 6, subscriptions would be provided to residents to the Belfast Bikes scheme and that private bikes could be stored within the apartments.

            The Planning Manager advised the Committee that, in response to refusal reasons 1 and 3, the professional advisors, including Planning officers, Urban Design officer, the Conservation officer and HED, believed that the proposed new build at the rear would be over-dominant and unsympathetic in relation to Listed Wilton House and the adjacent terrace, to the detriment of the setting of surrounding Listed Buildings.  He explained that the blue grey brick materials proposed would make the new build element conspicuous and the contrast in architectural styles was jarring.

            He added that the applicant had consistently advised that a certain quantum of development had to be carried out to the building in order to ensure commercial viability but that no information had been submitted to support that.

            In relation to refusal reason 2, he explained that, by granting permission, it would establish the principle and acceptability of the use of the building for residential purposes. He advised the Committee that, without this information on the building, they did not know if the interventions by the developer were in fact appropriate or suitable for the building and that was why it was fundamental to have that information upfront rather than by means of a condition.

            A Member asked, in relation to reason 4, whether there was a policy requirement for communal space and if it could be balanced with the context of the building in its current condition, and the fact that the proposal would bring it back into use.  The Planning Manager confirmed that Policy QD1 of PPS7 and Creating Places required suitable levels of amenity space for new residential development. He advised that the proposed amenity space was particularly poor in both quality and quantity and that it was the view of Planning officers that this was not outweighed by the benefits of restoring the building.  In respect of reason 5, the Planning Manager advised that the amenity space would be particularly dark, damp and those apartments facing onto it would have a poor outlook.

            Ms. N. Golden, Historic Environment Division, advised the Committee that, when a lot of detail was to be resolved at conditions stage, it was not only time consuming but it was also costly to the tax payer, as opposed to the developer. She reiterated that it was necessary for the information to be provided up front before a decision was made.

            The Chairperson invited the agent to respond to the question which had been raised regarding refusal reason 6.  Mr. Stinson advised the Committee that, through the Travel Plan, residents would be provided with travel cards and a Belfast Bikes subscription, and that they could also keep personal bicycles within their apartment, which he explained was seen as desirable for security reasons.

            The Chairperson then asked the agent to advise why the Committee should not accept refusal reason 1.  Mr Stinson advised that they had made amendments to the scale, form and design in order to make the additional building more subservient to the main building and believed that the current unsightly extension should be taken into consideration.

            In response to questions from the Chairperson, the agent confirmed that he believed the issues relating to refusal reasons 2 could be conditioned, and, in relation to reason 3, that he felt that the new build element was not over dominant and was subservient.

            In relation to the lack of amenity space provided within the development, the agent advised the Committee that they recognised that there was a constrained element but that a balance should be struck in light of the fact that they were seeking to bring a vacant listed building back into use and, due to its city centre location, the proposal was around 300 metres from the public grounds of the City Hall and that a park was close by on Durham Street.

            A Member requested that, as the Committee had heard from the agent, that it would then hear from Ms. J. Stokes, HED, in response to the issues which had been raised.

            Ms. Stokes explained that HED agreed that the current rear extension was unsightly but that it had been built in 1959 and that the policy that they were adhering to was adopted in 1999.  She emphasised that policy had changed and that they were not working on the same baseline and that they were striving to get the best.

            In relation to refusal reason 2, she explained that there was not adequate detail within the planning application as to how the new use would operate as a residential property or what interventions were required, and that HED could not support a consent on what had been provided.

            A further Member stated that, while he welcomed historic listed buildings being brought back into use, putting another extension which was deemed inappropriate for the setting by both officers and HED, would not solve the problem.  He also expressed concern regarding the proposal that residents would be expected to keep their bicycles in their apartment.

            In response, Mr. McConnell explained that, as the applicant had invested significant amount of money in to the application, they would carry out work such, as damp surveys, after a consent was granted.  In relation to the keeping of bicycles in apartments, he explained that many people who were cycling the city centre were purchasing bikes valued between £1,500 and £3,000+ and that, even when lockable bike boxes were provided, residents would still choose to store them within their apartment.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Groogan,

            Seconded by Councillor McKeown

         That the Committee agrees to refuse the application for the reasons as detailed within the case officer’s report.

            On a vote by show of hands, six Members voted for the motion and seven against and it was accordingly declared lost.

Further Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Brooks,

            Seconded by Councillor Carson,

         That the Committee approves the application, in accordance with the aforementioned rebuttal for each refusal reason, and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of conditions and any required Section 76 Planning Agreement.

            On a vote by show of hands, seven Members voted for the motion and six against and it was accordingly declared carried.