Agenda and minutes

            No apologies for inability to attend were reported.

            The minutes of the meeting of 9th December were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 8th January, 2025.

No declarations of interest were reported.

            The Committee noted that the previously scheduled site visit had not taken place and would be rescheduled.

            The Committee noted the proposed abandonment at Bedford Square.

            The Committee noted the appeals decisions.

            The Committee noted the planning decisions issued in December, 2025.

The Committee noted the list of live applications for major development.

            The Committee noted the list of Committee decisions which had not yet been issued.

            The Committee agreed to delegate to the Director of Planning and Building Control those Local planning applications to which NI Water had objected.

            The Acting Development Planning and Policy Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the Section 76 Monitoring Report and key information around financial developer contributions.

            The Committee noted the outcomes of the annual S76 Monitoring report for 2020/21 to 2024/25 and the intention to publish the summary document and accompanying online map viewer on the Council’s website.

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application and explained that the application had been approved by the Committee at its meeting in August, 2025 and that, subsequently, six late objections had been received which raised the following issues:

·        Road safety;

·        Conflict with existing right of way;

·        Parking;

·        Access;

·        Contaminated land; and

·        Community consultation.

            She reported that four late letters of support had been submitted and that correspondence had been received from Carson McDowell Solicitors on behalf of Agnew’s Trade Centre which clarified that the previous objection, referred to in the case officer report, should have referenced the northwestern corner of the site rather than the northeastern corner and the agent had subsequently submitted a rebuttal of the aforementioned objection and a revised ground floor plan which removed the superseded site layout from the drawing.

            She explained the key points raised in objection and stated that officers were content that the objections had been addressed, she added that neither DfI Roads nor Environmental Health had offered any objection to the application.

            She stated that, having regard to the Local Development Plan and all material considerations, it was recommended that the application be approved.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. J. Mawhinney, MBA Planning, on behalf of Issac Agnew Ltd., to the meeting.

            In objection to the application, Ms. Mawhinney outlined the following key facts with regard to issues of parking and incompatibility of uses:

·          The extent of Agnew’s right of way had not been detailed within the report and that it had an unfettered right to pass through without restriction;

·          That it was incorrect that Agnew’s was restricted in its access arrangements through its planning permission;

·          The vehicle tracking analysis was incorrect and should have evidenced that there was a pinch point on the northwestern corner;

·          The case officer report incorrectly asserted that there was no evidence that the proximity of the proposed leisure facility and HGV movements would increase the likelihood of vehicular-pedestrian conflict; and

·          There was no objective evidence to support the assertion that the shortfall of 40no. spaces could be met by on-street parking.

            In conclusion, she stated that Agnew’s had clearly demonstrated the conflict between its permitted operation and the proposed development, that harm was not mitigated by the proposed site layout or conditions sought to be imposed, and that right of way restrictions could not simply be disregarded.  She asked the Committee to refuse the application.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. L. McCausland, Agent, Mr. C. O’Hara, Tetratech Roads Consultant, and Mr. I. McNeill, Architect, to the meeting on behalf of the applicant.

            Ms. McCausland stated that the proposal had been unanimously approved by the Committee at its meeting in August, 2025 and that, since then, objections had been received from one objector, Issac Agnew Ltd. which was located to the rear of the application site.  She added that support for the proposal had been received from Blackstaff Residents’ Association and members of the public from the local community.

            She stated that, in response to the objections, the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

            The Committee deferred consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit.

            The Senior Planning Officer summarised the application and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of development;

·        Design;

·        Impact on rural character;

·        Residential amenity;

·        Contamination;

·        Green infrastructure;

·        Open space;

·        Natural environment;

·        Impact on landscape (Area of High Scenic Value (AHSV) and Belfast Hills);

·        Impact on trees;

·        Archaeology;

·        Access;

·        Community Cohesion and good relations;

·        Healthy Communities; and

·        Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

            He reported that the development had been designed to provide access to the Belfast Hills for local communities and to link with the wider path network which would improve the network of green infrastructure and improve access to open space.

            He stated that the proposal was not considered to be visually intrusive and would have no significant detrimental impact on rural amenity or environmental quality.

            He reported that there had been no objections had been received from statutory or non-statutory consultees and that final comments were outstanding from the NIEA Regulation Unit which was currently reviewing the submitted Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment in respect of contaminated land.

            He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Committee granted planning permission, 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

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

·        Principle of development;

·        Impact on amenity; and

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

            He informed the Committee that there had been no requirement for consultation and no third-party objections had been received.

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

            The Committee granted planning permission, 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Senior Planning Officer summarised the application and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of development;

·        Impact on amenity; and

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

            He informed the Committee that there had been no objection from consultees and that one neutral comment had been received and addressed within the case officer report. 

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

            The Committee granted planning permission, 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

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

·        Principle of development;

·        Impact on amenity; and

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

            She informed the Committee that there had been no objection from Environmental Health and that no third-party objections had been received.

            She stated that, having regard to the Development Plan, relevant planning policies and other material considerations, it was recommended that the proposal be approved.

            The Committee granted planning permission, 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of development;

·        Impact on amenity; and

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

            She informed the Committee that due to the minor nature of the application, consultations had been deemed unnecessary and that no third-party objections had been received.

            She stated that, having regard to the Development Plan, relevant planning policies and other material considerations, it was recommended that the proposal be approved.

            The Committee granted planning permission, 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.