Agenda and minutes

No apologies for inability to attend were reported.

            The minutes of the meeting of 17th October, 2023 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 November, 2023, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Alderman McCullough declared an interest in relation to item 8a on the agenda, LA04/2020/1858/F - Proposed residential development of 18 no. social housing units, comprising two terraces. Development includes associated car parking, gardens, landscaping, site access and all other site works. (amended plans that revise the proposed access and road layout, including the introduction of a traffic island). Hillview Retail Park, Crumlin Road, in that he was an objector to the application and stated that he would leave the meeting while the item was being considered.

            Councillor T. Brooks declared an interest in relation to item 9c on the agenda, LA04/2023/292/F - Redevelopment of existing surface car park for the erection of new purpose built, managed student accommodation scheme comprising of 354no. units with shared amenity spaces, ancillary accommodation, on street car parking and landscaping, site bounded by Glenalpin Street, Wellwood Street and Norwood Street, in that she owned a property adjacent to the application site and stated that she would leave the meeting while the item was being considered.

            The Committee noted the schedule of meetings for 2024.

            The Committee noted that item 9a on the agenda, under the heading, LA04/2022/1219/F - Demolition of existing building and erection of 11 storey building (May Street/Victoria Street) and 4 storey building (Gloucester Street) comprising 77 apartments with communal areas, ground floor retail services (A2) unit, cycle and car parking, and vehicular access via Gloucester Street, 177-183 Victoria Street 66-72 May Street and 4-8 Gloucester Street, had been withdrawn.

            The Committee noted the Committee site visits and agreed to defer the undernoted applications in order that the Committee could undertake a site visit:

·        LA04/2022/1203/F - Relocation of 5 No. allotments approved under LA04/2020/0042/F. Introduction of an additional No. 8 allotments, a sensory garden and support hub building for day care of young adults (Amended application site boundary, proposal description and drawings), Glenriver Lands adjacent to 78 Cloona Park;

·        LA04/2023/292/F - Redevelopment of existing surface car park for the erection of new purpose built, managed student accommodation scheme comprising of 354no. units with shared amenity spaces, ancillary accommodation, on street car parking and landscaping, site bounded by Glenalpin Street, Wellwood Street and Norwood Street; and

·        LA04/2020/2285/O - Two Storey detached dwelling with garden and associated parking, Land adjacent to 39 and 40 Stirling Road

            The Committee noted the notice of abandonment.

            The Committee noted the provision of accessible parking bays at the following locations:

·        18 Heath Lodge Avenue;

·        60 Nevis Avenue;

·        63 Mount Vernon Park; and

·        Apt 2.3, 100 Cliftonville Road.

            The Committee noted the appeals decisions.

            The Committee noted the planning decisions issued in October, 2023.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the Council’s Housing Land Availability Summary Report and the Employment Land Monitor for the 2022/23 monitoring period.

            The Committee noted the outcomes of the Housing Land Availability Summary Report and the Employment Land Monitor for 2022/23 and the intention to publish the summary documents and accompanying online map portals on the Council’s website.

            The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman (NIPSO) had written to the local Councils and the Department for Infrastructure in July, 2023 to advise that concerns had been raised with regard to how public bodies fulfil their duties to protect trees within the planning system.

            He reported that NIPSO had carried out an ‘own initiative’ investigation which had invited public bodies to submit comments in response to a number of set questions and subsequently published a report that included observations and a number of recommendations under the following key headings:

·        Strategies, Policies and Procedures;

·        Tree Preservation Orders;

·        Applications for Works to Protected Trees;

·        Protected Trees on Council Owned Land;

·        Statutory Undertakers; and

·        Enforcement Activity.

            The Committee noted the publication of the NIPSO report on tree protection matters and the comments on relevant NIPSO recommendations.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0      Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       To provide the Committee with an overview of the typical planning issues and policy considerations relevant to the assessment of planning applications for 3G pitches.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       The Committee is asked to note the report.

3.0       Main Report

            Background

3.1       At the August 2023 Planning Committee meeting, Members sought information on the typical planning issues relevant to consideration of planning applications for 3G pitches.

3.2       This report sets out the legislative context for decision making, the main planning issues relevant to applications and their associated planning policies. These considerations will often equally apply to planning applications for other forms of play pitches.

            Legislative context

3.3       As the Committee is aware, NI operates a plan-led system whereby planning applications must by law be decided in accordance with the Local Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

3.4       The Local Development Plan (LDP) for Belfast will be in two parts. Firstly, the Belfast LDP Plan Strategy 2035 (PS), which was adopted in May 2023. Secondly, the Belfast Local Policies Plan (LPP), which is yet to be published. Until such time as the LPP is adopted, the Council must have regard to the proposals maps and zonings in the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (the ‘Departmental Development Plan’ under the transitional arrangements), draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (v2004 and v2014) and other relevant Development Plans.

            Belfast Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy 2035

3.5       The operational policies in the PS are the principal consideration when the Council assesses planning applications for 3G pitches.

3.6       A range of different policies in the PS might be engaged when considering such applications depending on the location of the site and site constraints. The most common planning policy considerations are summarised in the table, below.

3.7       A link to the PS policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance is provided below.

          https://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/Planning-and-building-control/Planning/Local-development-plan-(1)/Local-development-plan/Adoption-of-Plan-Strategy-documents

            Provision of new open space with settlements

3.8       The Council recognises the need to make provision for new open space, including sport and outdoor recreation facilities, within the city. Policy OS2 states that ‘Planning permission will be granted for [such uses] at appropriate locations within the defined settlement limits, subject to consideration of the nature and location of any proposals.’ Policy OS2 goes onto require proposal to satisfy a range of criteria relating to landscaping; impact on visual and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

            (Alderman McCullough left the meeting while the following item was being considered.)

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and pointed out that, whilst the officer recommendation had been to refuse planning permission, the committee had previously approved the application at its meeting in August 2021, subject to the outstanding assessments on roads, drainage, contamination, air quality and noise being submitted and considered acceptable by the Committee at a future meeting.

            He reported that, following the submission of additional reports, those matters had been addressed to the satisfaction of officers, save for the road issues which remained.  The application was subsequently reported to the Committee at its meeting in December, 2022, and the application was deferred to allow time for the applicant to submit an amended site location plan and further revised proposals which sought to address DfI Roads’ objection and to alleviate the safety concerns that had been raised, and following further information DfI Roads had advised that it had no objection to the application and that the application had been reassessed following the adoption of the Plan Strategy.

            He explained that additional information had been provided by the applicant which had addressed DfI Roads’ previous objection. He further explained that the application had been re-assessed in the light of the adoption of the Belfast LDP Plan Strategy 2035.  Whilst concerns remained with regard to placemaking and the quality of environment provided for occupants of the proposed development, it would not be considered unreasonable for the Committee to maintain its previous view, that planning permission should be granted in the planning balance having regard to the desirability of providing social housing in an area of significant need. Should this be the case, the Committee would require a Section 76 planning agreement to secure the development as social housing.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Maskey,

            Seconded by Councillor Ferguson,

     That the Committee agrees to uphold the Council’s previous decision of 17th August, 2021, to approve the application, having reassessed the application in the light of the Belfast LDP Plan Strategy 2035 and been satisfied that DfI Roads had offered no objection and that reports had been submitted which resolved the other technical issues, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement to secure the development as social housing, and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement. 

            On a vote, fourteen Members voted for the proposal and five against and it was declared carried.

(Alderman McCullough returned to the meeting.)

            The Planning Manager explained that the Committee had approved the applications at its previous meeting in October, 2023 for a temporary five-year permission with a review to take place after three years.

            He reported that following legal advice officers had concerns about the review mechanism as there was no clear means to require removal of the signage after three years, should the signage be found to be unacceptable.

            He stated that the normal approach would be to grant a temporary three-year permission with the review taking place during that period.  He added that the applicant had reported there would be a lead in time for designing, costing, tendering and carrying out the works and therefore was seeking a 3.5 year permission.

            The Planning Manager explained that the Committee was being asked to confirm the duration of the temporary permission and conditions, to include a 3.5 year permission.

            The City Solicitor further advised that, as the Committee had previously made its decision to approve the application, it was limited to consideration of whether a three-year or five-year permission were appropriate, and that a 3.5 year permission was not a feasible option.

Proposal

            Moved by Alderman McCullough,

            Seconded by Councillor Carson,

      That the duration of the permissions and review period, as approved at its meeting of 17th October 2023, be for three years.

            On a vote, fourteen Members voted for the proposal, three against and two no votes and it was declared carried.

            The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application had previously been deferred by the Committee at its meeting in April, 2023 to allow officers to explore the availability of additional evidence with regard to the environmental impacts of short-term holiday lets.

            He reported that the Council's Environmental Health and Local Development Plan Housing Team had been consulted as well as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and  had been asked to provide any evidence with regard to the environmental impacts of short term holiday lights such as noise or antisocial behaviour complaints. 

            He reported that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had stated that an evidence base for complaints from Airbnb’s could not be provided as it did not record this is a residential type.  He added that Environmental Health had run a report for short term lets services for the BT15 post code area since 2018 and, whilst there had been no complaints related to the Limestone Road, there had been complaints recorded within the post code area at Glandore Avenue, Fortwilliam Crescent and Duncairn Gardens.

            He stated that, in consideration of the adoption of the new Plan Strategy, the recommendation to the Committee was that planning permission should be refused for the following draft reasons:

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy HOU13, criterion (c), as was not sited within an existing tourism cluster or in close proximity to a visitor attraction;

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy HOU3, in that the proposal would fail to protect existing residential stock for permanent occupation and was contrary to criterion (a) as the proposed use was not considered complimentary to the surrounding residential uses and would likely result in adverse effects on residential amenity within this established residential area; and

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy HOU3, in that the proposal would fail to protect existing residential stock for permanent occupation and was contrary to criteria (c) and (d) in that the short term let use would not be considered subordinate to the residential use and did not provide a separate user entrance as public access will be required.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. J. Young, the applicant, to the meeting.  Mr. Young stated that he had made several enquires as to the correct procedure for listing consultation responses including timeframes and that the case officer had confirmed that planning had received the Environmental response on the 1st and 7th of June 2023 but had only published it on the planning portal 24th October.  He stated that the consultation responses had been received outside the 21-day consultation reply rule.

            He explained that he had requested the date on which the application had been referred to the Committee by a Member and the material planning considerations, but that he was still awaiting confirmation.

            Mr. Young stated that, comments made by a Member at a previous meeting of the Committee with regard to constituents having contacted his office to report that the property had been operating as a holiday let had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and highlighted the following key issues:

·        Principle of development;

·        Design, scale, layout and impact upon the character and appearance of the area;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Affordable housing and housing mix;

·        Accessible and adaptable accommodation;

·        Climate change;

·        Drainage;

·        Traffic, movement and parking;

·        Waste-water infrastructure; and

·        Noise, odour and other environmental impacts including contamination.

            She stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered, on balance, acceptable, and that it was recommended that planning permission was granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Committee agreed to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement and to deal with any other matters that may arise prior to the decision being issued, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and explained the following key issues that were relevant to consideration of the application:

·        Principle of retail warehousing at the location;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        Provision of car and cycle parking; and

·        Access.

            He reported that there had been six objections from three planning consultants that acted for the operators and owner of the neighbouring premises that had raised concerns with regard to character, context, building line, parking, principal of retail development and loss of landscaped area.  He added that there had been no objections received from any consultees.

            He stated that, having regard to the development plan, relevant planning policies and other material considerations, it was recommended that the proposal would be approved.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Kelly, Planning Consultant, Gravis Planning, to the Committee who was speaking in objection to the application, on behalf of a neighbouring business.  He stated that the principal concern with regard to the proposal were related to design, parking and servicing.

            He reported that the proposed unit was located to the front of the site with the majority of parking located at the rear and that it was considered the siting of the proposal was unacceptable in its current form and outlined how it was contrary to Policy DES1 of the Plan Strategy which outlined planning policy related to the principal of urban design and required that any new development would respond positively to local context and character.

            He stated that it was also considered that exceeding the existing building lines would also have a detrimental effect on his client’s lands by obscuring the view of the site and unit when approached from the south along the Boucher Road which would likely affect his client’s existing business and its ability to attract potential customers.

            He explained how the proposals to locate parking at the rear of the premises and servicing arrangements were contrary to the Plan Strategy and clear evidence that the proposal was too large for the site.

            The Chairperson thanked Mr. Kelly for his representation and welcomed Mr. E. Loughry, speaking on behalf of the applicant, to the meeting.  Mr. Loughry explained that the proposal had been found to comply with the Council’s Plan Strategy and that the Boucher Road was one of the largest retail warehouse locations in Northern Ireland. 

            He stated that the proposal would not cause any significant retail impact to any centres protected under planning policy and that there was a clear need for the proposal which had been designed to comply with the Council’s policies of design, traffic, and environment. 

            He reported that the proposal had been assessed in terms of contaminated lands, sustainable urban drainage, climate change resilience and water treatment and infrastructure capacity and that it had been shown to be acceptable. 

            He explained that the traffic and parking requirements of the proposal had been assessed three times by DfI Roads, which found the reduced car parking provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues:

·        Principle of development;

·        Design;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        Built heritage;

·        Climate change;

·        Access and parking;

·        Drainage and Waste-Water Infrastructure; and

·        Noise, odour and other environmental impacts.

            She reported that the consultees had been satisfied, subject to conditions and that no representations had been received.

            She stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, that the proposal was considered acceptable.

            The Committee agreed to approve the application, subject to conditions, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with any other matters that may arise prior to the decision being issued, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and its substantial planning history, that included three extant approvals.  She outlined the following main issues to be considered:

·        The principle of a hotel at the site location;

·        Scale, massing and design;

·        Impact on built and archaeological heritage;

·        The impact on natural heritage;

·        Landscaping/boundary treatments;

·        Traffic and road safety;

·        Human health/environmental considerations;

·        Flooding and drainage;

·        Economic considerations;

·        Environment and community;

·        Pre-application community consultation; and

·        The consideration of developer contributions.

            She brought to the Committee’s attention that there had been an error in the wording of condition 31 contained within the report which restricted occupancy to prevent residential use.  She explained that the report should have stated that the maximum stay by the same occupant should be no more than 90 days within any 12-month period, in line with Section 54 application approved for the same site under reference LA04/2023/2688/F.

            She stated that the final substantive response had been received from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA): Natural Environment Division, which had offered no objection to the application.

            The Senior Planning Officer reported that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposed development was considered acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission would be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Committee agreed to approve the application, subject to conditions, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with any other matters that may arise prior to the decision being issued, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and explained that there were no physical alterations or works proposed to the listed building as all proposed installations were temporary and reversible and therefore, no Listed Building Consent or conservation comments were required.

            She reported that consultee advice had been sought regarding transport, environmental and Listed Building issues, and that all consultees had indicated no objection to the proposal.

            She stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, the proposed development was considered acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission was granted, subject to conditions.

            The Committee agreed to approve the application, subject to conditions, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with any other matters that may arise prior to the decision being issued, provided that they were not substantive.

(The Committee agreed to consider the following two items together.)

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a summary of the applications and stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, the proposals were considered acceptable and that it was recommended that listed building consent was granted, subject to conditions.

            The Committee agreed to grant listed building consent in respect of both applications, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with any other matters which may arise, to include any representations which may occur during the statutory advertising period.