Agenda item

The Principal Planning officer provided the Members with the details of the application.

The Principal Planning officer reported that the application was scheduled for presentation to the Planning Committee on 17th April, 2021.  However, following the publication of the agenda for that meeting, the agent had requested that consideration of the application be deferred to allow for the submission of a viability assessment and an updated redline to enable further discussion in relation to public realm improvements.  At the April meeting, the Members had been asked to consider the request for a deferral but officers had highlighted that a viability assessment would not address the fundamental design issues with the proposal. At that meeting the Committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application, to allow the developer to submit additional information.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that further information had been submitted on 7th May 2021, including:

·        Further justification of design and 3D visuals showing potential design amendments and a case presented to suggest the changes would be detrimental to the resultant character of the building and the area.

·        Confirmation sought as to the outcome of consultations in relation to public realmcontributions, as per the Developer Contribution Framework, and a reluctance to extend a red line in the absence of any demonstrated need for such improvements.

·        Confirmation that the developer was willing to enter into a Section 76 Agreement to facilitate a contribution towards wider public realm improvement schemes within the area.

·        A letter from Savills, whereby it was argued that the buildings did not make a material contribution to the conservation area as their removal and appropriate replacement would not have an adverse effect on the area. It was claimed that efforts were made to market the site and the only interest was based on the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment. It was also claimed that the spaces within the existing buildings were deemed unsuitable, and what was felt as restricted access to two of the buildings made them unsuitable for modern office providers.

He explained that officers remained of the opinion that:

·        any suggested design changes would be to the benefit of the overall character of the building, the appearance of the conservation area and would reduce the impact on the adjacent listed Ulster Hall;

·        a consultation response from DFC remained outstanding, however officers remained of the opinion that the red line should be extended to facilitate public realm improvements in the area immediately surrounding the proposed building. That was a standard requirement for such schemes within the city centre to mitigate the development and to enhance the character and appearance of the area;

·        it was considered that insufficient information had been submitted in terms of the overall viability of the scheme, and the merits for removing the existing buildings which Officers considered made a positive contribution to the character of the Linen Conservation Area.  Policy BH14 of PPS6 was clear that when a building made a positive contribution, the presumption was in favour of retention, and that the Council should have regard to the same broad criteria for the demolition of listed buildings (para 6.5 and policy BH 10). PPS6 Para 6.5 reinforced the ethos that if the building made a contribution, then the presumption to retain and protect should only be relaxed under exceptional circumstances, including condition of the building, cost of repairing and maintaining, efforts made to retain the building and alternative proposals for the site. On balance, in the absence of what was considered to be sufficient information to justify the removal of the buildings and without an acceptable redevelopment proposal, it was the view of officers that the proposal was contrary to PPS6; and

·        there was insufficient evidence provided in relation to the marketing of the site, either in terms of selling or renting the existing buildings.

The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby an objection had been received, concerned that the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th floor windows, on the western elevation, would prejudice the future development capacity of the adjacent site and that it was over-dominant in size and scale.  The Principal Planning officer advised the Members that it was not considered that the windows would significantly prejudice the development of the adjacent site however, the scale of the building was considered to be unacceptable and was one of the reasons for recommending refusal.

            He also advised the Members that, immediately before the meeting had commenced, correspondence had been received from the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS), stating that they supported the officers’ recommendation for refusal, as they believed it was contrary to the SPPS and PPS6.

The Members were advised that the scale, height, massing, alignment and form of the building would have a detrimental impact upon the setting of a number of listed buildings, including the Ulster Hall.  The Principal Planning officer pointed out that HED objected to the proposal on the grounds of harm to the setting of listed buildings, which was contrary to Policy BH11 of Planning Policy Statement 6.

The proposal included the demolition of two buildings, one on Clarence Street and one on Linenhall Street. The principle of demolition of the building on Linenhall Street, which made a positive contribution to the character of the Linen Conservation Area, was not acceptable and the proposed redevelopment scheme did not enhance the character and appearance of the area as it was of a scale and massing which was unsympathetic to the adjoining buildings and the characteristic built form of the area. Both the Conservation Officer and the Urban Design Officer objected to the proposal.

He explained that the Council had a duty to adopt a precautionary principle and when considering demolition of a building which made a positive contribution to the character of a conservation area there should be clear and convincing evidence that all reasonable efforts had been made to sustain existing uses or find viable new uses, and that those efforts had failed. The onus, therefore, was on the applicant to provide detailed evidence in support of such claims.  He stated that officers remained of the view that the applicant had failed to provide such evidence.

The Planning officer outlined that DAERA and NI Water had advised that, at present, the waste water treatment infrastructure did not have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development and no acceptable, alternative solution had been proposed. However, for the reasons set out in the report, it was considered that the issue could be addressed by a suitably worded planning condition and a refusal reason on that issue was not considered appropriate.

            The Chairperson then welcomed Mr. Stinson, agent, to the meeting.  Mr. Stinson advised the Committee that:

·        he was disappointed with the recommendation to refuse planning permission for a £13 million investment in the City Centre of 6,000 sq metres of Grade A office floorspace;

·        the building was separated from the main Ulster Hall by a small extension and was similar to the separation that exists between Ulster Hall and 21 Linenhall Street;

·        whilst the Ulster Hall was listed in its entirety, not all aspects of its setting were similar and the existing building heights on Linenhall Street resulted in a different context within which the building could still be appreciated. Para 9.31 of the officer report acknowledged that high-rise contemporary buildings had transformed the built context, and changed the overall context for listed buildings in the conservation area;

·        guidance had been given on how the relationship with the Ulster Hall impact could be addressed by amending the roof profile and introducing setbacks, however, it was considered that those features would result in a building that was uncharacteristic of that part of the Conservation Area as the characteristic uniformity and consistency of façade would be lost.

·        significant amendments had been made to the scale, form and mass of the building from the previous application;

·        the report stated that Linenhall Street and Adelaide Street were defined by large contemporary buildings, yet the officers considered that the building would dominate the immediate streetscape, suggesting that the building was significantly out of scale with the surrounding context. That could not be the case, as it was similar to the height of the building at 21 Linenhall Street and was similar in width and form to other buildings along Linenhall Street and Adelaide Street;

·        the Councils Linen Quarter Vision Guidance identified the existing buildings as making a negative contribution to the area;

·        the interest for the site following the marketing was in the redevelopment of it;

·        the existing car park and associated advertising hoardings detracted from the conservation area.  The retention of those unlisted buildings removed the opportunity for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site and importantly the opportunity to enhance the Conservation Area was lost.  The proposed development realised the opportunity to enhance the Conservation Area, meeting the test set in legislation, and that should weigh significantly in the planning balance;

·        the officers report noted that a consultation from the Department for Communities was outstanding yet the officer opinion in the addendum report suggested that public realm improvements were required regardless of the DfC response;

·        the applicant was willing to make a contribution to public realm improvement schemes that the Linen Quarter BID was intending to bring forward for the area to ensure that any public realm was part of a coherent scheme for the Conservation Area and not one that was an isolated change at odds with the surrounding streets so that it would cause harm to, rather than enhance it; and

·        finally, they had met the legislative test to enhance the Conservation Area by removing the car park.

            A Member queried how the current buildings were of architectural merit.

            In response, Mr. G. Moore, Architect, advised that they did not feel that the buildings contributed positively to the Conservation Area and that the existing corner was a difficult site and was quite alien within the city centre.

            The Principal Planning officer confirmed to the Members that the Linen Conservation Area Guide had identified the terraced façade for maintenance/enhancement, rather than a development opportunity, and that it had not been identified as making a negative or a positive contribution.  He advised the Members that the Conservation officer was of the view that the building did make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation area.

            The Members of the Committee recommended that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to refuse the application for the reasons detailed within the report.

            (Councillor McCullough joined the meeting at this point in proceedings)