Agenda and draft minutes

            No apologies for inability to attend were reported.

            The minutes of the meetings of 17th, 19th and 24th August 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 September, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

Councillor Groogan declared an interest in relation to item 6f – LA04/2019/1886/F – 13 Residential Apartments (One block of 11 No. Apartments, one block of 2 No. Apartments) with associated amenity space and site works at 42-50 Ormeau Road, in that the applicant was known to her and that she would not participate in the vote on the item.

            Councillor McMullan declared an interest in relation to item 6g – LA04/2021/0173/F - Alterations and extension to create new consulting and therapy rooms with plant relocated to roof at 193 Belmont Road, as he had previously discussed the matter with residents in the area and had expressed opinions on the application and that he would not participate in the vote on the item.

            The Committee noted that site visits had taken place, on 2nd and 9th September, in respect of the following applications:

·        LA04/2020/1360/F - Demolition of existing church hall and construction of 9.no apartments at 491-495 Lisburn Road;

·        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

·        LA04/2021/0493/F – Demolition of existing buildings and erection of social-led, mixed tenure residential development comprising of 90 units in 2 no. apartment buildings (maximum height of 4 storeys) containing 75 apartments; and 11 townhouses and 4 apartments (along Sefton Drive); provision of hard and soft landscaping including communal gardens, provision of car parking spaces, tenant/staff hub, cycle parking, substation and associated works at Former Park Avenue Hotel, 158 Holywood Road;

·        LA04/2020/1959/F – New parkland (Section 2 Forthmeadow Community Greenway) – foot and cycle pathways, lighting columns, new entrances and street furniture, site to be developed includes vacant land bounded by the Forthriver Industrial Park in the east, Springfield Road to the South and Paisley Park & West Circular Road & Crescent to the West.  Area also includes links through the Forthriver Industrial Park to Woodvale Avenue, land at Springfield Dam (Springfield Road), Paisley Park (West Circular Road) and the Junction of West Circular Road & Ballygomartin Road;

·        LA04/2020/0493/F - Alteration and extension of existing building to provide 4 No one bed apartments at 23 Glandore Avenue and 2 Glanworth Gardens; and

·        LA04/2020/2280/F - Mixed use development comprising 1 ground floor retail unit and 13 apartments, associated amenity space, landscaping and all other site works at 93-95 Falls Road.

            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 Strategic Director of Place and Economy, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 10th August and 6th September 2021.

            The Committee was advised that correspondence had been received from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI), giving notice that it intended to abandon an area of 19.537 square metres of footway on the western side of the Westlink to the rear of Nos. 10 and 11 Quadrant Place, Belfast. 

            The Committee noted the abandonment.

            The Members noted that the following applications had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·        (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2020/0857/F – Demolition of existing hostel building and redevelopment to provide four-storey building comprising 15 No. residential units, office space and ancillary development at Ormeau Centre, 5-11 Verner Street; and

·        (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2021/1595/F - Re-placing existing kiosk with upgraded kiosk on Lands in front of Calvert House including covered area at 23 and 17 Castle Place.

            The Divisional Solicitor advised the Committee that the item had been withdrawn by officers on the basis of legal advice, as information from a statutory consultee had not been uploaded to the Portal until earlier that day.

            The Committee noted that, as the application had not been presented, all Members present at the next meeting would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            The Committee noted the Late Items pack, whereby the agent had requested that the application be withdrawn from the agenda to allow further engagement between the applicant and the local community on parking and the other issues raised.

            Before presentation of the application commenced, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable the discussions to continue.

            The Committee noted that, as the application had not been presented, all Members present at the next meeting would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            The Chairperson advised the Members that Councillor Gormley wished to address the Committee on the item and he was welcomed to the meeting. 

            Councillor Gormley explained that he had only been informed that the application was due to be considered by the Committee earlier that day and that he had not had sufficient time to engage with the residents who had objected to the application.  He requested that the Committee would defer the application for one month in order to allow him to speak with residents.

            The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application for one month.

            The Committee noted that, as the application had not been presented, all Members present at the next meeting would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

The Members were reminded that the application was considered by the Committee at its meeting on 17th August where it had agreed to defer consideration for a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and to consider points of objection which had been raised.  The site visit had taken place on Thursday, 2nd September.

The Chairperson reminded Councillors Groogan and Hanvey that, as had not been present for the discussion of the application on 17th August, they could not participate in the vote on the item.

            The Principal Planning officer provided a brief overview of the application to the Members.  On the site visit, Members had assessed overlooking from the proposed balconies and discussed parking provision within the street location and associated with the neighbouring development. 

She confirmed to the Members that no new amendments or information had been received for further consideration and that the officers’ recommendation remained unchanged.

            She clarified the planning history for the neighbouring site, at 497-505 Lisburn Road, under reference Z/2007/0197/F, was granted permission over ten years ago for four retail units, 10 apartments and basement car parking.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding why it was deemed acceptable for the development to proceed without the inclusion of any car parking spaces, Mr. C. Sloan, Department for Infrastructure, advised the Committee that the application had been assessed against and was considered to comply with PPS3.  He explained that the developer had promoted alternative modes of transport, by way of providing travel cards to residents, and also advised that the site was in a highly accessible location.  The Members were advised that the applicant had provided a parking survey which illustrated spare capacity on nearby roads, adjacent to the site.

            A further Member expressed concern that there appeared to be a trend with developers submitting plans for developments on arterial routes, with little to no parking included, and using it as an opportunity to put more units on a site.  He also queried whether an applicant was likely to submit a parking survey which stated that there was no spare capacity for parking in the surrounding area of a site, and suggested that surely DFI Roads should conduct their own surveys independent from the applicant.

            A further Member stated that they were also sympathetic to the objectors who had raised concerns regarding parking but that the Committee Members’ hands were largely tied as the policy standards, in their current format, were being met by the application.

(Councillors Brooks and Hutchinson joined the meeting at this point in

proceedings and therefore did not participate in the vote)

            The Principal Planning officer outlined to the Committee that the onus was on the applicant to submit a range of surveys.  She explained that they would employ experts in order to carry out those surveys and officers had to accept the surveys at face value.  She explained that quite often the parking surveys would be accompanied by photographic evidence and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9d

            (Councillor McMullan, having declared an interest in the item, left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and did not participate in the vote)

            The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application.

            She outlined that the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application included the principle of development, the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the draft Area of Townscape Character (ATC), the effect on amenity and traffic and road safety.

The Committee was advised that eight objections had been received from neighbouring properties, raising issues predominantly with parking and road safety concerns as well as the impact on a residential area and concerns regarding light and noise pollution.  She explained that the concerns had been addressed within the Case officer’s report.

            The Members were advised that the principle of development for the proposed extension and alterations to the veterinary hospital was considered acceptable as it was directly related to the already established use. The proposal would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area nor give rise to any unacceptable impacts regarding residential amenity.

She advised the Committee that the Council had consulted DFI Roads, requesting it to consider the objections regarding parking and road safety. She highlighted that DFI Roads had offered no objections to the development proposal.

The Members were advised that, given the response from DFI Roads, which was the statutory consultee on road safety and parking, the minor nature of the proposal and that the applicant had advised that they did not forecast an expected increase in average no. of vehicles/persons at the premises, it would be difficult to conclude that the proposal would have a significant impact or exacerbate the existing issues that would constitute a refusal.

The Committee was advised that the proposal was considered to accord with Policies AMP2 and AMP7 of PPS3 and the SPPS.

            The Members were advised that Environmental Health had also been re-consulted on the issues raised by objectors and it had confirmed it had no objections to the proposal.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby correspondence had been received from the agent.  The agent had advised that the existing on-site parking provision fell short of what was required by Parking Standards. He explained that the site could facilitate 14 parking spaces but the parking standards would mean a requirement of 34 spaces for the current building. He advised that there was no increase planned in either staff or patient numbers but rather the proposal was required for facility improvement rather than service expansion.  Currently, the practice was using some rooms for multiple purposes which was not ideal nor efficient.  He added that consultations were by appointment only, with the exception of emergencies.

            The Committee welcomed Mrs. A. Huggett, an objector and neighbour, to the meeting.  She explained that:

·        what was once a small 1960’s veterinary hospital, it had increased in size  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9e

(Councillor McMullan re-joined the meeting at this point)

            The Planning Manager presented the details of the major application to the Committee, made by Belfast City Council, for a new parkland for Section 2 of the proposed Forth Meadow Community Greenway. It included foot and cycle pathways, landscaping, lighting columns, new entrances and street furniture.

            He outlined the key issues which had been considered by officers during the assessment of the planning application, including:

·        the principle of development;

·        impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        impact on natural heritage;

·        access, movement and parking, including road safety;

·        impact on built heritage; and

·        flood risk.

            The Members were advised that the site was a large area of open space, characterised by planting and a variety of trees and includes the Forth River Ravine to the east of the site.  The area comprised a mix of uses.  The Innovation Factory was situated immediately adjacent to the site and, further to the north, west and south of the site the area was mostly residential with a large supermarket to the north east.

The Planning Manager explained that the site was located within an area zoned as industry and commerce in the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP).  He advised that part of the application site was zoned in the 2004 version of draft BMAP 2015 (dBMAP v2004) as an area of Existing Employment/Industry under designation BT010 – Employment/industry Land at Springfield Road (Former Mackies Site). The Members were also advised that the site was also located partly within zoning WB 04/12 Housing – Lands to the south of Ballygomartin Road and to the east of West Circular Road. In addition, the site was subject to the following environmental designations: Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) – BT 102/26- Springfield Pond/ Highfield Dam; Local Landscape Policy Area (LLPA) BT 160 Woodvale / Springfield Road; and a Community Greenway BT162/02.

He explained that part of the application site was zoned in the 2014 version of draft BMAP 2015 (dBMAP v2014) as an area of Existing Employment under designation BT 004 – Land at Springfield Road (Former Mackies site). The application site also fell within an uncommitted housing site WB 04/04 – Land between West Circular Road and Ballygomartin Road, either side of the Forth river.  In addition, the site was subject to two environmental designations: SLINCI - BT 084/26 – Springfield pond/Highfield Glen’ and a Community Greenway BT147/02.

            The Committee was advised that Environmental Health, Northern Ireland Water, BCC Tree Officer, BCC Landscape, Planning and Development team, DFI Roads Service, DFI Rivers Agency, Historic Environment Division (Historic Monuments); Historic Environment Division (Historic Buildings); DAERA Water Management Unit, DAERA Regulation Unit; Shared Environmental Services and DAERA Natural Environment Division had been consulted in respect of the application and had raised no issues of concern subject to conditions.

The Planning Manager explained that the proposal had been assessed against the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9f

The Committee was advised of a Council application for an environmental improvement scheme at two locations on the Falls Road and the entrance from the City Cemetery to the Falls Park. The works included upgrades to park entrances and path lighting, foot and cycle pathways, lighting columns, upgraded entrances and street furniture.

The site was designated as lands reserved for landscape, amenity or recreational use in the BUAP and as existing open space within both versions of dBMAP and an urban landscape wedge.

The Members noted that the proposals would complement and improve the area and comply with the relevant policy and area designations.

DFI Roads and NIEA had been consulted and had offered no objection to the proposal.  Environmental Health had requested contamination information which could be adequately addressed through condition.  No third party representations had been received.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

            The Committee was apprised of the details of the Council application.

The Members were advised that the proposal was an environmental improvement scheme at two locations on the Whiterock Road and Ardmonagh Gardens. The works included foot and cycle pathways, lighting columns, enhanced entrance layouts and street furniture.

The Members were advised that the site was designated as lands reserved for landscape, amenity or recreational use in the BUAP and as existing open space within both versions of dBMAP and an urban landscape wedge.  It was reported that the proposals would complement and improve the area and comply with the relevant policy and area designations.

The Committee was advised that NIEA had offered no objection to the proposal. Environmental Health had requested additional contamination information, which could be adequately addressed through condition. Whilst there was an outstanding consultation response from DFI Roads, officers advised that an amended plan had been submitted to address that and no objection was expected from DFI Roads.

One objection had been received in relation to the proposed removal of the gates.  The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack.  The Members were advised that the removal of the gates did not require planning permission and that the proposal included the replacement of the gates with 1.8m high paladin gates. The applicant had advised that the gates would be opened and closed in line with the Council’s parks policy.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions, subject to no objection from DFI Roads.

The Committee was advised of the key details of the application and noted that the scheme was funded by Belfast City Council. 

The building was a two storey brown brick building fronting an enterprise centre comprised of single storey warehouse buildings. The proposed glazed entryway was of a minor scale and the design complimented the existing building.

The site was white land within BUAP and was in a major area of existing employment/industry (BT011/38) as designated within dBMAP.

            The Committee was advised that no third party objections had been received.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report and appendix:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       Correspondence has been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED) of the Department for Communities (DFC), inviting the council to review and provide feedback on a guidance document, entitled ‘Conservation Principles – Guidance for the sustainable management of the historic Environment in Northern Ireland July 2021’.

1.2       The document has been made available for public consultation for an 8-week consultation period, commencing on 13 August and closing on 08 October 2021.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       Committee is requested to:

·        note the contents of Appendix 2, which sets out the guidance document provided by HED with the Supporting Consultation statement from the Minister; and

·        consider and if appropriate approve the response to the Conservation Principles document as set out in Appendix 1.

3.0       Main report

3.1       The consultation document is provided in Appendix 2 and is the first part of a two-part publication on DfC’s Conservation Principles for the sustainable management of the Historic Environment.  Part 2 will set out how to apply these principles, which will be provided to councils for comment in due course.

3.2       This document, Part 1, sets out the six key guiding Conservation Principles, providing  a best practice conservation-led framework to inform all aspects of decision-making which affect our historic environment, and to reconcile its protection with the economic and social needs and aspirations of our communities. 

3.3       Whilst the purpose of the guidance is to inform the exercise of HED in its primary functions the intention is that it would also to be referred to by owners, developers, policy makers and decision makers in central government when considering changes which impact on a designated or non-designated heritage assets.

3.4       The specific applicability in relation to the the work of HED would be in respect of:

·        decision-making prior to undertaking work on sites in their ownership and care,

·        decision-making and in their advice to others,

·        informing their consultation advice to local councils on planning applications,

·        providing advice with regard to the marine historic environment for development, proposals either seaward, or exempt from, terrestrial planning,

·        contributing to Local Development Plans,

·        publishing guidance relating to the historic environment; and assessing applications, and

·        where they provide financial support.

3.5       The six key guiding principles are:

1.     The historic environment is of value to us all

2.     Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment

3.     Understanding the significance of heritage assets is vital

4.     Heritage assets shall be managed to sustain their significance

5.     Decisions about change shall be reasonable, transparent and consistent

6.     Documenting and learning from decisions is essential

3.6       This publication whist reflective of guidance in other jurisdictions is tailored to the process through which the historic environment is managed in Northern Ireland. It seeks to provide a best practice conservation-led framework, the document will assist and guide those considering proposals or the development of policy affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets.   

3.7       Whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

The Committee was provided with an updated Schedule of Planning Committee Workshops for September 2021 to September 2022.

            The Members were advised that the Workshop on the Local Development Plan (LDP), which was scheduled to take place on 16th September 2021, would be rescheduled and that it would be discussed as part of restricted Item 8a, “Response to 'Draft Development Plan Practice Note (DPPN) 11- Receipt of Independent Examination Report and Adoption of a Development Plan”.

            The Committee agreed the schedule and noted the above change in respect of 16th September, 2021.

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

            The information contained in the reports associated with the following three items is restricted in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 6 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

      Resolved – That the Committee agrees to exclude the members of the Press and public from the meeting during discussion of these items as, due to the nature of the items, there would be a disclosure of exempt information as described in Section 42(4) and Section 6 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

The Planning Manager (Policy) outlined the Department for Infrastructure’s (DfI) recent draft guidance (DPPN11) on the adoption of Local Development Plan (LDP) documents to the Committee.  He advised the Members that DfI had requested comments on the draft DPPN by end of September 2021.

The draft guidance relates to the final stages of the local development plan preparation process whereby the DfI consider the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) report and issue a formal Direction to Council with a requirement to either adopt, modify or withdraw the LDP

document. It also covers future LDP monitoring requirements.

He highlighted that the guidance suggested that the Planning Appeal Commission’s report would not be issued to any council in advance of a Direction being issued, thus not affording the Council advanced consideration of the outcomes or issues arising from the Independent Examination.

A number of Members expressed concern that the PAC report would not be made available to Elected Members or officers before a Direction was issued.

The Committee:

·        noted the draft DPPN11 guidance document;

·        considered the proposed response to the draft DPPN11, as set out in Appendix 2, and approved its submission with the addition of the further detail in respect of any potential DfI Directions for withdrawal and the expanded case for the early release of the Independent Examination Report; and

·        agreed to hold a Special Meeting in respect of the issue, at a time and date to be agreed by the Chairperson, if deemed necessary by officers based on their discussions with DFI.

            The Committee noted the report and the associated financial reporting pack.

The Divisional Solicitor provided the Committee with an update in relation to legal proceedings in respect of planning application LA04/2020/0426/F, for the reconstruction of petrol station and ancillary retail unit at 228-232 Stewartstown Road.  She reminded the Committee that it had resolved to grant planning permission in respect of the application at its meeting on 20th April, 2021.

She explained that an application for judicial review had been lodged on 19th July, 2021, on behalf of objectors. She outlined that no correspondence had been received regarding any potential challenge prior to the judicial review application being lodged.

The Committee was advised of the grounds of challenge in the judicial review application.

She explained that officers had conceded that the decision should be quashed, on the grounds outlined to Members.   However, the Committee was advised that the developer had not consented to the planning permission being quashed, as they had completed 50% of the works on site.  As a result, the Court had scheduled a Remedies Hearing on 8th October, 2021.

The Committee was advised that, if the Court agreed to quash the Committee decision, the planning application would be reheard by the Committee at a subsequent meeting.

The Divisional Solicitor advised that the Committee would be provided with a further update on the application at a future meeting.