Agenda item

The Principal Planning officer outlined the details of the retrospective advertisement consent which was being sought for a temporary mesh banner sign for a period of 24 months.

The Committee was advised that the Belfast Telegraph Building itself, adjacent, was listed and that the site was directly opposite the Cathedral Quarter Conservation Area.

The key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposed development included:

·        impact on local amenity

·        impact on public safety

·        impact on the setting of listed buildings; and

·        commercial and regeneration considerations

The Members were advised that the site was located within the city development limits for Belfast as designated within the Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2004.

Historic Environment Division had been consulted and considered that the proposal was contrary to the policy requirements of SPPS 6.12 and BH11 of PPS6.  It had stated that the material, size, scale, alignment and location of the banner signage, in proximity to the historic fabric of the listed building, adversely affected its setting. HED noted that previous permissions in respect of the signage had been granted consent for 2 years and 1 year respectively.

The Principal Planning officer outlined that the proposed advertisement was considered contrary to Planning Policy (PPS17 Outdoor Advertisements) and was therefore considered unacceptable. There was a history of previous applications on the site for the same proposal.  However, the most recent application, LA04/2021/1586/A, had been before the Planning Committee for consideration in October 2021.  At that meeting, the Committee had raised concerns with the fact that the proposal had already been granted an extension and there was no further advancement in the development of the site.  The Committee had resolved to refuse the application in November 2021 on the following grounds:

1.     The proposed advertising, was contrary to AD 1 of PPS 17, in that the advertising by virtue of its position on the host building, its size and scale would through its undue prominence and excessive visibility have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, the character of the area and detract from the appearance of the building.

2.     The proposed advertising shroud, was contrary to BH 11 of PPS 6, in that the advertisement would, if permitted, not respect the architectural form and detailing of the Listed Building by reason of its scale, height and alignment and did not respect the character of the setting of the heritage asset.

The Deputy Chairperson welcomed Mr. S. McGimpsey, applicant, to the meeting.  He outlined the difficulties that the commercial property market was facing as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. He advised that the locality was going through a period of transition with the construction of the new university campus and that the aim of the application was to secure a tenant and funding package to enable the commencement of development of the site.

The Principal Planning officer explained that, whilst the applicant’s position was not unreasonable, it could be argued that, given the advert had been in place for such an extended period, and had failed to garner the required interest, then the owners should perhaps consider deploying other means of advertising.

A Member stated that they did not feel that the sign was doing any harm in the area.

Further Members requested clarity from officers in respect of whether an enforcement case had been raised in respect of the sign which had been displayed on the building very recently, despite the Committee having rejected the application in November 2021.  In response, the Principal Planning officer explained that enforcement cases were paused where an application was going through the planning process.

The Committee agreed to refuse Advertising Consent as the proposal was contrary to PPS 17 – Control of Outdoor Advertisements, Policy AD1 and paragraphs 6.12 of the SPPS and Para’s 6.20, 6.59 & Para 6.60 of the SPPS in relation to the impact on the setting of the Listed Building and the Conservation Area.

(The Committee adjourned for five minutes at this point in proceedings)