Agenda item

The Principal Planning officer outlined the details of the application to the Committee, which related to a mixture of uses, including residential, office and a café. The site was located within the designated City Centre and consequently, there was no objection in principle to any of the proposed uses at that location.

 

She drew the Members attention to the Late Items Pack, whereby a further 21 objections had been received in respect of the proposed development, including from Councillor Flynn and Paula Bradshaw MLA.  Consequently, a total of 286 objections had been received in respect of application LA04/2020/0844/F and 281 in respect of application LA04/2020/0840/LBC.  The new issues raised within the late objections included the following:

 

·        residents had not been given adequate time to prepare their objections for the Committee;

·        the proposal would have a negative impact on community cohesion;

·        Joy Street, Sussex Place and Rathbone Street were part of an established residential area - the status was confirmed by the draft BMAP which had designated the area, including the application site, as a protected city centre housing area;

·        the protected city centre housing area designation overrode the definition of an established residential area in Annex E of Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas;

·        the proposed development was contrary to Policy LC2 of PPS 7 Addendum, specifically criterion (e) the development did not contain any flat or apartment which was wholly in the rear of the property and without access to the public street;

·        the proposed development was contrary to para 4.12 of the SPPS, in relation to safeguarding Residential and Work Environs;

·        the Markets area should see an inclusive, community centred approach to planning;

·        proposed development was focused solely on private gain rather than community and civic uplift; and

·        the proposal denied the local community access to a vital part of its built heritage. 

 

The Principal Planning officer outlined the officers’ response to the issues which had been raised, including that:

·        information in respect of the January Planning Committee meeting was published on the Council’s website on Tuesday, 11th January, 2022 and representatives of the local community had requested speaking rights on the item;

·        the designation as an established Residential Area and a Protected city centre housing area were not linked and one designation did not outweigh the other. According to the definition of an established residential area in Annex E of PPS 7 Addendum, the application site was not considered to be an established residential area. Furthermore, Annex E stated that policy LC1 would not apply to designated city centres;

·        the application site was located within a Protected city centre housing area, as designated in dBMAP. As per para 8.13 of the report, Policy HOU 5 stated that permission would not be granted for any development that resulted in a change of use from housing within such an area. The application site was not currently used for housing and therefore the proposal did not conflict with that policy;

·        it was considered, on balance, that the proposed development was not contrary to Policy LC2 of PPS 7 Addendum. As per the case officer’s report, there was no adverse effect on the local character, environmental quality or residential amenity, the proposal maintained the form, character and architectural features, design and setting of the existing building, the original property was greater than 150 sq metres gross internal floorspace, all apartments were self contained and the development did not contain any apartment which was wholly in the rear of the property and without access to the public street (all apartments had access to Joy Street); and

·        In relation to para 4.12 of the SPPS, residential amenity considerations were considered within the case officer report.

 

The Members were advised that the application site included the former St Malachy’s Primary School, a Grade B1 listed building.  The listing encompassed the old school building and an adjoining warehouse. There were also a number of listed buildings located within the immediate locality. The Principal Planning officer highlighted that those listed buildings and the location within the Linen Conservation Area contributed to the character of the site and the surrounding area.  She explained that Historic Environment Division (HED) had provided comments on the proposal and was content that the proposal satisfied the tests of para 6.12 and 6.13 of the SPPS and Policies BH7, BH8 and BH11 of PPS 6.

 

            The Council’s Conservation Area officer had provided comments on the proposal, advising he had no objection to the proposed change of use and that he welcomed the retention and re-use of the existing listed buildings. He concluded that he had no objections in principle, however, concerns had been noted with suggested revisions. The Committee was advised that the concerns related to the additional storey on the Joy Street elevation and the provision of dormers on the listed warehouse building. However, Members were reminded that HED was the authority on Listed Buildings and that it was content.

 

            In terms of the impact on the Conservation Area, the Conservation Area officer advised that the proposed development, on balance, resulted in an enhancement of the appearance and character of the Linen Conservation Area, in accordance with the SPPS and Section 104 of the Planning Act.

 

The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee that it was considered that the design and layout of the proposed development would not create conflict with the adjacent land uses. She explained that there would be some limited overlooking, natural light and outlook, however, those concerns were balanced against the inner city location of the site and the proposed renovation and re-use of an existing vacant listed building.  On balance, therefore, it was considered that the amenity concerns would not give rise to an unacceptable adverse impact on existing or proposed occupiers.

 

            In terms of the provision of amenity space, the Members were advised that the proposed space fell below the standards set out in Creating Places. The agent had advised that it was not feasible to provide an adequate amount of amenity space within the proposal. It was acknowledged that the application site was located within the City Centre and in relatively close proximity to the City Hall and Waterfront Hall and the River Lagan. It was also recognized that there was limited opportunity to provide amenity space within the existing listed warehouse, where six of the apartments were proposed.

           

The Principal Planning officer outlined that the proposed development supported walking, cycling and was within close proximity of public transport links and city centre amenities. In relation to the needs of people whose mobility was impaired, there was no lift access within the apartment building, however, there was accessible accommodation provided to the two ground floor apartments, the office and the café.

 

The Committee was advised that the application site was located within the coastal floodplain. However, as the proposal involved the re-use of an existing building, it could be considered an exception under policy FLD 1 of PPS 15. DFI Rivers Agency had provided comment on the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, advising of no objections.

 

There were no concerns in relation to parking or sewage infrastructure.

 

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. D. Worthington, Pragma Planning, Mr. B. Murtagh, Queen’s University, and Mr. F. Hargey, Market Development Association, who wished to present to the Committee on behalf of objectors.  The Chairperson advised the Committee that Ms. G. Jobling, JPE planning, and Ms. C. Farmer, a local resident, were also in attendance to answer any questions from the Members.

 

Mr. D. Worthington advised the Committee that:

 

·        the proposal was contrary to Policy QD1 of PPS7 para 6.137 of SPPS;

·        the proposal constituted town cramming, with four demonstrable indicators of it – namely:

·        the apartments provided substandard accommodation, there were no facilities or private open space and no natural light which was contrary to QD1 criterion (c) and LC2 criterion (e) of the Addendum to PPS7;

·        the proposal involved the erasure of historic urban grain through the infilling of the open yard and negative effects on the listed buildings around it which was contrary to QD1 criterion (b);

·        the bin storage for the apartments was via the entrance on Joy Street, and was directly opposite existing dwellings and alongside the entrance to Hamilton House, which was contrary to paragraph 4.12 of the SPPS and QD1 criterion (h);

·        the servicing and bin access for the coffee shop was unenforceable and absurb –the number of trips could not be measured daily and its waste would have to be brought through an occupied office;

·        finally, the site was within a Conservation Area, PPS7 QD1 permitted development which intensified the use of the land or increased site coverage only in exceptional circumstances and the application, in fact, did both but that the exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated, nor covered within the Case officer’s report at all.

 

Mr. B. Murtagh explained that:

 

·        in respect of the provision of open space and amenity space, officers had admitted that it was in contravention of PPS7 QD1 Creating Places and Conservation Area policy, in fact, that the proposal intended to remove perfectly servable amenity space from the development;

·        the Council’s own Conservation Design Guide stressed the need to integrate Joy Street, Hamilton Street and St Malachy’s and the convent which were all listed buildings within an integrated townscape;

·        the Case officer’s report outlined that there was not room in an inner city scheme such as the application at hand for open space/amenity space;

·        the walled open courtyard was an integral part of the school and the fabric of the convent;

·        in a separate Conservation Impact report, carried out by a Grade 1 Conservation architect, it was scathing in its analysis that the impact of the proposal “was a blatant an example of overdevelopment as one could ever expect to find”;

·        the NIHE minimum space standards were 60-65 metres squared whereas the apartments proposed in Rathbone Street were 53 metres squared – they were dark, narrow and significantly overlooked, which was bound to have an impact on future residents’ health and wellbeing; and

·        the apartments fronting onto Rathbone Street were not accessed by it but rather by the rear of the building, which was in convention of PPS7 LC2, which stated that no apartment in a converted building should be located solely to the rear of a property with no access to the front of the building, and that had not been fully addressed within the Case officer’s report.

 

In response to a Member’s question regarding the access to the bin storage area from the café, they advised the Committee that there was an assumption within the report that waste would only be taken out four times per day and that would be unenforceable in terms of the management plan.  As a result, they added that they felt that the bins would inevitably end up being stored on Rathbone Street.

 

In response to a further Member’s question regarding consultation with local residents, Mr. Hargey advised the Committee that residents were always attentive in terms of keeping updated with new planning applications in the area and that it was unfortunate that the application had been submitted during the first lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which had meant that there could be no face to face consultation events.  He explained that there had been an assumption that all residents had internet access in terms of undertaking online consultation and that that was not the case for many residents in the area as it fell within one of the most deprived wards in the City.  He added that the Council had since apologised for the fact that letters had been issued to residents on a bank holiday in late May 2020, informing residents that they had to submit concerns within just a few days.

 

In respect of parking concerns, Ms. Farmer explained that she lived adjacent to the site.  She advised the Committee that many of the surrounding streets had double yellow lines in place and that those that didn’t suffered greatly with commuter parking and, as a result, residents of the area already struggled on a daily basis to get parked near their properties.

 

A Member stated that the Committee was aware of significant parking issues in the area and that the DFI Roads response in respect of the application unfortunately did not reflect the situation.

 

The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Gormley to the meeting.  He explained that he objected to the application for the following reasons:

 

·        it constituted overdevelopment, in terms of cramped apartments, lack of amenity space, unsatisfactory bin arrangements;

·        the location of the main domestic bins on Joy Street would pose a serious issue as it was adjacent to entrances to neighbouring buildings and opposite houses in Joy Street.  Residents were extremely concerned about the noise, smell and possible attraction of rats;

·        the Management Plan was unworkable, specifically in respect of access arrangements to the bins from the coffee shop; and

·        the proposed apartments would have a cumulative adverse impact on the local community contrary to policy QD1 of PPS7.

 

The Chairperson welcomed Councillor McKeown to the meeting.  He asked that the Committee would refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

·        the residents agreed that the location should be brought back into use, but it should not happen at any cost;

·        it was in community use up until less than a decade ago and therefore it did not need rescued, rather, it should be rejuvenated and brought back into use which complemented the community and the City;

·        the proposal constituted overdevelopment and would result in loss of privacy, overshadowing and a loss of sunlight for residents;

·        it would create an additional burden on the current parking issues in the area, posing road safety issues and that he disagreed with the officers’ analysis; and

·        he believed that it would have a negative impact on the built heritage in the area, particularly given the historical architectural nature of the site and its surroundings, including the view and setting of other listed buildings;

·        the proposal was not in keeping with the size or nature of the existing site; and

·        inactive frontages were usually discouraged within a city centre context.

 

The Chairperson then welcomed Ms. E. Kelly, Mr. N. Murray and Mr. A. Blackbourne, representing the agent and applicant, to the meeting. 

 

Ms. Kelly advised the Committee that:

 

·        the proposal would restore the ‘at risk’ buildings and return them to use;

·        it would deliver an economic use onto the site along with delivering new housing within the city centre, thereby meeting the Council’s aspirations to grow the city centre population;

·        the proposals had the support of HED and the Council’s Conservation Officer, who had been supportive of the applicant’s vision to revitalise the buildings. They had worked closely with HED and planning officers during the Pre-Application Discussions to refine the proposals and deliver a development that would return the buildings back to use;

·        the applicant had responded to the concerns of the local community by actively engaging in discussions with them over the past year.  They shared the residents desire to see the building brought back into use and were happy for those discussions to continue;

·        the buildings had been vacant since 2013 and had fallen into disrepair since the school had closed in 1987. The buildings were subsequently purchased by Belfast Buildings Preservation Trust but they had been unable to restore them as intended;

·        the current state of the buildings was readily apparent from outside and Members would have seen the current internal state from their site visit;

·        the proposal would complete the street frontage on Joy Street by filling in a gap site, taking the opportunity to enhance the Conservation Area. It continued along the existing building line and was characteristic of the city centre context.

·        the separation distance between properties was typical of an urban environment;

·        HED and the Conservation officer were satisfied that the new build element would not impact on the setting of listed buildings in the area;

·        detailed modelling had been provided to show that the upper floor would have a limited presence in the streetscene and that its impact would not harm the conservation area;

·        in respect of the impact on the Conservation Area, the courtyard had already been subject to development as part of the 1 Sussex Place development;

·        the impact on the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed buildings had been robustly assessed by both the Conservation officer and HED, both of whom had offered no objections;

·        in respect of access to the apartments facing onto Rathbone Street, she explained that that would require intervention into the elevation of a listed building and that the scheme sought to minimise such interventions;

·        in respect of queries raised over policy LC1, she explained that it did not apply as the site was not located within an established residential area; and

·        in respect of waste management, it was not unusual for bin storage to be provided at ground floor level and that the Waste Management Strategy had been prepared in conjunction with the Council’s waste management section and planners.

 

Mr. Blackbourne advised the Committee that:

 

·        before they had submitted the planning application, they had held PAD discussions for around two years and, through that process, they had secured the support of the Council’s Planning Service, HED, as well as all other statutory consultees;

·        whilst the scheme did not require community consultation, they would have held it if they had known the interest in the buildings, but no community interest was made known to them during the period of the PAD;

·        since the application had been submitted, they had been pleased to hear from the Market Development Association (MDA) and their agents and had consulted with them on 9 occasions to date, between September 2020 and November 2021;

·        they were impressed by the MDA’s plans for a Heritage Hub  (226 sq m), Café (197 sq m) and Offices (324 sq m) and had made a firm commitment to MDA to provide them a reasonable timeline to get their business plan approved and funded, and only if they were unable to complete a purchase would they revert to their plans for saving the 2 historic buildings;

·        having planning permission would be of significant benefit to the MDA business case and the current application in front of the Committee would secure permission for works to the listed buildings which could be extremely beneficial to MDA in the future; and

·        it was their intention to sell the apartments on completion and not permit short-term letting and they were more than happy that the scheme be conditioned on that basis.

 

            The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the agent and applicant for their presentation.

 

            In response to a Member’s question, Ms. Kelly advised the Committee that the Case officer’s report had concluded that, on balance, given the significant heritage elements associated with the scheme, they outweighed and constituted a departure from planning policy in respect of amenity space.  She added that the principal of residential development was established as the site was white land within the city centre and therefore it was considered acceptable.

 

            In a question for officers, a Member queried where, in policy, did it state that more weight should be given to the conversion of a listed building over other contending policy elements of a scheme.  In response, the Principal Planning officer explained that it was not a matter of giving more weight to a certain policy than another, it was about balance.  She explained that officers could see that the listed buildings were in considerable disrepair and, in terms of regenerating a listed building could run up a considerable cost, a balance had to be struck in terms of restoring a listed building and bringing it back into use, which sometimes meant a trade off in terms of the level of amenity space.

 

            In respect of policy LC2 of PPS7, the Principal Planning officer detailed that it had been addressed within the Late items pack as it had been raised by objectors.  She outlined that the policy had been tested at the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) and that it had been established that, provided that there was access to the public street, even if the apartments were situated solely in the rear of the property, that was acceptable.

 

            A Member expressed concern that perhaps too many apartments had been included within the development and queried what constituted a quality residential environment.  In response, the Principal Planning officer explained that, while they acknowledged that there were shortcomings as outlined within the report, on balance, they had recommended an approval.

 

            A further Member expressed concerns regarding the scheme.

 

            Moved by Councillor Murphy

            Seconded by Councillor Maskey and

 

Resolved – That the Committee agrees to refuse the application as it is contrary to the SPPS and PPS7 policy QD1, namely points (c) and (h), as well as being contrary to policy LC2, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final refusal reasons.

 

(Councillor Hussey left the meeting at this point in proceedings)