Agenda and minutes

            Apologies for inability to attend were reported from Councillors Bower and Collins.

            The minutes of the meetings of 17th May were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 1st June, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor Whyte declared an interest in item 6a - (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2020/1959/F - New parkland (Section 2 Forthmeadow Community Greenway), in that he had previously met with Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR), who were objecting to the application, and that he would leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion on the item.

            He also declared an interest in item 6h - LA04/2021/0859/F - Retention of 21-23 Victoria Street and 41-51 Waring Street, Belfast with minor alterations to facades and erection of a 3 storey extension to the buildings to facilitate a 164 bedroom hotel, in that he had previously met with the applicant and had expressed support for it, and that he would leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion on the item.

            He also declared an interest in item 6j - LA04/2022/0207/F - Change of use from Church halls to offices at Townsend Street Presbyterian Church, 32 Townsend Street, in that he was on the Board of the Ulster Orchestra, which was the intended end user for the application, and that he would leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion on the item.

            Councillor Maskey also declared an interest in item 6a - (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2020/1959/F - New parkland (Section 2 Forthmeadow Community Greenway), in that the organisation that he was employed by had worked with Sustrans to recruit walking and cycling volunteers for the Forthmeadow Community Greenway and that he would leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion on the item.

LA04/2022/0535/F & LA04/2022/0468/DCA - Physical development - re-cladding of the exterior of the building, creation of a new access point to the upper floors and central core on Castle Arcade, demolition of bridge link over Castle Arcade and erection of a new oversail section at the junction of Castle Lane and Castle Arcade. Change of use - partial change of use of upper floors from storage and back of house facilities to a mixed use of Assembly and Leisure (class D2) and a sui-generis multifaceted leisure use combined with the sale of food and drink for the consumption on the premises. Reconfiguration of existing ground floor storage, associated public realm improvements and ancillary development. Net reduction in gross floorspace of approximately 331 sqm. Partial demolition of existing facade treatment on Castle Lane, Castle Arcade and Cornmarket, demolition of existing internal staircases and internal walls and demolition of bridge link over Castle Arcade, at 13-25 Castle Lane Belfast BT1 5DA; Castle Arcade Belfast BT1 5DF and 3-9 Cornmarket.

The Committee agreed to undertake a pre-emptive site visit in respect of the following applications, on Thursday, 16th June:

·        LA04/2022/0535/F & LA04/2022/0468/DCA - Physical development - re- cladding of the exterior of the building, creation of a new access point to the upper floors and central core on Castle Arcade, demolition of bridge link over Castle Arcade and erection of a new oversail section at the junction of Castle Lane and Castle Arcade. Change of use - partial change of use of upper floors from storage and back of house facilities to a mixed use of Assembly and Leisure (class D2) and a sui-generis multifaceted leisure use combined with the sale of food and drink for the consumption on the premises. Reconfiguration of existing ground floor storage, associated public realm improvements and ancillary development. Net reduction in gross floorspace of approximately 331 sqm. Partial demolition of existing facade treatment on Castle Lane, Castle Arcade and Cornmarket, demolition of existing internal staircases and internal walls and demolition of bridge link over Castle Arcade, at 13-25 Castle Lane Belfast BT1 5DA; Castle Arcade Belfast BT1 5DF and 3-9 Cornmarket.

The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence in respect of a number of planning appeals which had been submitted to the Planning Appeals Commission, together with the outcomes of a range of hearings which had been considered by the Commission.

            The Committee noted a list of decisions which had been taken under the delegated authority of the Director of Planning and Building Control, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 10th May and 9th June 2022.

            The Committee noted that correspondence had been received from the Department for Infrastructure, advising the Council that it proposed to abandon land at Little Victoria Street Car Park and at Charlotte Street Car Park under the Roads (NI) Order 1993.

The Committee:

·        noted the proposal to abandon land at Little Victoria Street Car Park; and

·        deferred consideration of the Department’s intention to abandon land at Charlotte Street Car Park and requested that further information be sought from DFI in relation to the reason(s) for the abandonment.  It further agreed that DFI be requested to provide the Council with further information in respect of future abandonments under the Roads (NI) Order 1993.

            The Committee noted that the following two items had been withdrawn from the agenda by officers:

·        (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2019/0775/F - 18 dwellings to include revision of site layout of previous approval Z/2007/1401/F at sites 2-8 (7 dwellings) and additional 11 No. dwellings, including landscaping, access via Hampton Park and other associated site works on lands approximately 50m to the north of 35 Hampton Park and approximately 30m to the west of 60 Hampton Park, Galwally; and

·        Update on Planning Portal replacement IT system (Restricted Item).

            The following item was withdrawn by the applicant:

·        LA04/2021/2440/F & LA04/2021/2439/DCA - Demolition of existing dwelling and garage to allow for the erection of a new semi-detached dwelling and two apartments at 362 Lisburn Road.

(The Chairperson, having declared an interest in the item, left the meeting while

the item was under consideration.)

(Councillor Groogan in the Chair.)

            Moved by Councillor Garrett,

            Seconded by Councillor Councillor Groogan and

       Resolved – that the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the application, to the Special Meeting on 27th June, in order to allow the objectors more time to consider the Case officer’s report and the Judicial Review findings.

(Councillor Whyte, Chairperson, resumed the Chair.)

            The Committee was provided with the key details of the application.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the application had been before the Committee in March 2021, where it had agreed to grant permission with delegated authority given to theDirector of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions and the Section76 Planning Agreement. 

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby Legal Services had since confirmed that the Section 76 Agreement had since been executed.

The Principal Planning officer explained that, due to the length of time taken to finalise the Section 76 Agreement following the Committeemeeting, the Planning Service had reconsulted NI Water and that it had responded in June 2021 advising that there was insufficient Waste Water Treatment Capacity available at present for the proposed development.

The response from NI Water stated that:

“Belfast WWTW no longer has headroom capacity to serve this proposal. However, initial improvement works currently under construction at Belfast WWTW, once completed, together with base maintenance of the activated sludge process of the existing works, will result in providing some additional capacity in advance of the major phased upgrade of Belfast WWTW.’

In a further response dated June 2022 NI Water had advised that:

“Our only requirement is that this proposal shall not be occupied before 1 July 2023, which is the date when additional treatment capacity will be available as a result of completion of initial phase of upgrade work at Belfast WWTW. The developer has already confirmed to NI Water that this condition would be acceptable as this proposal will not be completed until after this date.’

            The Principal Planning officer explained that officers felt that the condition from NI Water was not required given that the improvements to the WWTW were expected by July 2023 and should provide increased capacity by the time that the development was completed.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to conditions and a Section 76 Planning Agreement, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the application was one of four applications which had initially been presented to the Committee on 17th May 2022, and which had been deferred in order that the Committee would be provided with clarification of the Area of Townscape Character (ATC) between the BUAP and draft BMAPs.

She explained that the proposed site was outside the adopted ATC under the BUAP 2001. Under draft BMAP 2004 and 2015, the site was within a proposed ATC.

The Committee was advised that, within adopted ATCs, Planning Policy Statement 6 Addendum was applicable. However, PPS6 Addendum was not applicable to proposed ATCs, as confirmed by the Planning Appeals Commission.  However, regardless of this, the Principal Planning officer explained that the impact of the proposal on the overall character of the proposedATC could still be objectively assessed in the context of the surrounding built form. She outlined that the impact of theproposal had been assessed in relation to the character of the area including the proposed ATCand was considered acceptable.

The proposal was for a minor awning to the front door which did notnegatively impact the existing property or surrounding built form. The character of the area, including the draft ATC, would be maintained.

The key issues which had been considered included the design/impact on character and appearance, amenity and public safety.

She outlined that the amended plans which had been uploaded to the planning portal on 3rd May, 2022, had reduced the size and design of the awning to address concerns of anti-social behaviour and being out of character with the existing building and in a residential area. The Members were advised that the proposal would not negatively impact the amenity

of neighbouring properties and would not prejudice public safety.

DFI Roads had been consulted and had no objections and no third party representations were received.

The Committee granted approval to the application, with delegated power given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise conditions.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the application was one of four applications which had initially been presented to the Committee on 17th May 2022, and were deferred in order that the Committee would be provided with clarification of the Area of Townscape Character (ATC) between the BUAP and draft BMAPs.

She explained that the proposed site was outside the adopted ATC under the BUAP 2001. Under draft BMAP 2004 and 2015, the site was within a proposed ATC.

The Committee was advised that, within adopted ATCs, Planning Policy Statement 6 Addendum was applicable. However, PPS6 Addendum was not applicable to proposed ATCs, as confirmed by the Planning Appeals Commission.  However, regardless of this, the Principal Planning officer explained that the impact of the proposal on the overall character of the proposedATC could still be objectively assessed in the context of the surrounding built form. She outlined that the impact of theproposal had been assessed in relation to the character of the area including the proposed ATCand was considered acceptable.

The key issues which had been considered included the design/impact on character and appearance, amenity and public safety.

The proposed awning and materials were considered in keeping with the existing ground floor commercial unit of the building. The proposal would not negatively impact the amenity of neighbouring properties and would not prejudice public safety.

DFI Roads had been consulted and had no objections and no third party representations were received.

The Committee granted approval to the application, with delegated power given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise conditions.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the application was one of four applications which had initially been presented to the Committee on 17th May 2022, and were deferred in order that the Committee would be provided with clarification of the Area of Townscape Character (ATC) between the BUAP and draft BMAPs.

She explained that the proposed site was outside the adopted ATC under the BUAP 2001. Under draft BMAP 2004 and 2015, the site would be within the ATC.

The Committee was advised that, within adopted ATCs, Planning Policy Statement 6 Addendum was applicable. However, PPS6 Addendum was not applicable to proposed ATCs, as confirmed by the Planning Appeals Commission.  However, regardless of this, the Principal Planning officer explained that the impact of the proposal on the overall character of the proposedATC could still be objectively assessed in the context of the surrounding built form. She outlined that the impact of theproposal had been assessed in relation to the character of the area including the proposed ATCand was considered acceptable.

The key issues which had been considered included the design/impact on character and appearance, amenity and public safety.

The proposed awning and materials were considered in keeping with the existing ground floor commercial unit of the building. The proposal would not negatively impact the amenity of neighbouring properties and would not prejudice public safety.

DFI Roads had been consulted and had no objections and no third party representations were received.

The Committee granted approval to the application, with delegated power given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise conditions.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the application was one of four applications which had initially been presented to the Committee on 17th May 2022, and were deferred in order that the Committee would be provided with clarification of the Area of Townscape Character (ATC) between the BUAP and draft BMAPs.

She explained that the proposed site was outside the adopted ATC under the BUAP 2001. Under draft BMAP 2004 and 2015, the proposed site would be considered within the proposed ATC.

The Committee was advised that, within adopted ATCs, Planning Policy Statement 6 Addendum was applicable. However, PPS6 Addendum was not applicable to proposed ATCs, as confirmed by the Planning Appeals Commission.  However, regardless of this, the Principal Planning officer explained that the impact of the proposal on the overall character of the proposedATC could still be objectively assessed in the context of the surrounding built form.

She advised that the impact of the proposal had been assessed in relation to the character of the area including the proposed ATC and was considered acceptable. The rear property line was adjacent to the adopted ATC. The proposal was for a minor awning to the front door which would not negatively impact the existing property or surrounding built form. The character of the area, including the draft ATC, would be maintained.

The Members were advised that amended plans had uploaded to the planning portal on 3rd May 2022, reducing the size and design of the awning to address concerns of anti-social behaviour and it being out of character with the existing building and in a residential area.

DFI Roads had been consulted and had no objections.  Two objections had been received, raising concerns over anti-social behaviour, noise and safety, as well the awning not being in keeping with the residential area. She explained that those matters had been addressed within the Case officer’s report and that the amended proposed scheme was considered acceptable.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, with delegated power given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise conditions.

(The Chairperson, having declared an interest in the following two items, left the meeting while they were under consideration.)

(Councillor Maskey in the Chair.)

            The Principal Planning officer presented the Committee with the details of the application.  He outlined that the demolition and alterations included the:

·        dropping of window cills and installation of new aluminium framed windows;

·        removal and relocation of existing doors to form fire exits;

·        removal of existing roller shutter door and installation of a new entrance door;

·        removal of existing doors and installation of new aluminium framed windows;

·        demolition of wall sections and formation of new window openings;

·        alteration of existing window configurations; and

·        demolition of existing internal columns, stairs and removal of lift shafts and non-structural internal walls.

            The Members were advised that the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposal included:

·        the principle of the proposal at that location;

·        demolition, impact on amenity / character of the area, Conservation Area and listed buildings;

·        design and layout of the proposed accommodation;

·        impact on transport and other infrastructure;

·        flood and drainage risks;

·        amenity and contamination issues;

·        Employability and Skills; and

·        Developer contributions.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that the site comprised a vacant unlisted former warehouse/commercial building located within the Cathedral Conservation Area. The area was commercial in character and use, comprising office, retail, and bar, food/restaurant uses.

He reported that the scheme would introduce a three-storey extension above both 21- 23 Victoria Street and 41-43 Waring Street, with internal demolition to enable the new floor layouts to be achieved. The Members were advised that the extension had been subject to detailed discussions through the preapplication discussion (PAD) process with both the Council and HED, and that it had evolved significantly from the initial iterations in an effort to address concerns around scale, height massing and design of the proposed extension. The Committee was advised that the current proposal was considered acceptable in scale, form and massing and design. The acceptability of a three storey extension was a key consideration and was much discussed during the PAD. Overall, the extension was considered acceptable following key design changes to minimise its impact on the character and appearance of the host building, the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the conservation area.

The Members were advised that weight had also been given to the value of retaining and re-using the original, vacant buildings, given that a previous permission had included the demolition of both buildings, and the efforts made to ensure that the design and elevational treatment were of suitable quality to compliment and respect the surrounding buildings.

Some internal demolition works were proposed, however, given the positive response from HED and the Conservation Officer, the extent and nature of demolition was considered acceptable. A method statement detailing the methodology and ‘making good’ of all demolition works would be required by condition in order to ensure the protection of historic features. The Members were advised that the Urban Design Officer had also considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9g

(Councillor Maskey in the Chair.)

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the principal aspects of the application.

            She explained that the application was before the Committee as the officer’s recommendation to approve was contrary to a statutory consultee’s recommendation,  Northern Ireland Water (NI Water).

            The Committee was advised that the proposal was for the change of use of a listed building, The Old School House, which currently had the use of “class D1 community”. She explained that it was in use as a church hall associated with Townsend Street Presbyterian Church – which was also a listed building.  The Members were advised that the Old Schoolhouse was situated to the rear of the church. It was proposed the building would be used for office space - use class - B1(a). The building was to be used as the administrative offices of the Ulster Orchestra.

She reported that the building had three floors. The ground floor included offices, file storage, a meeting room and other ancillary facilities, whilst the first floor contained open plan office space, a training room and a breakout area. No office accommodation was included on the second floor. Occasionally the Ulster Orchestra would propose to use the space to meet prior to rehearsal, which currently happened within the adjacent Church.

The Committee was advised that Historic Environment Division (HED) had no objection to the proposal.

            The Members were advised that NI Water had objected to the proposal as it had stated that there was insufficient capacity at the wastewater treatment works. The Principal Planning officer detailed that the applicant had submitted calculations which indicated that there would be a reduction in the amount of water usage as a result of the ‘change of use’. Officers considered that there would be no significant impact on the infrastructure from the development relative to its current use.

            She reported that the proposal was in keeping with development plan designations and with all other planning policy.  It complied with the SPPS -’listed buildings’ (paragraph 6.13) and accorded with policy BH7 of PPS6.  There was also an application for ‘Listed Building Consent’ associated with the application, LA04/2022/0208/LBC.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, with delegated power given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions.