Agenda and minutes

            No apologies were reported.

            The minutes of the meeting of 16th November 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 December, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

Councillor Spratt declared an interest in item 6h, namely LA04/2020/1126/F - Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 13 no. dwelling houses and 10 no. apartments with car parking, landscaping and associated site works at 30, 32 and 34 Corrib Avenue, in that he was related to one of the agents for the application, and he left the meeting for the duration of the item and did not participate in the vote.

            The Committee considered a proposal from DFI Roads to introduce additional waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) on Collingwood Road, between Carmel Street & Damascus Street. 

            The Committee noted the proposal.

            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 8th November and 7th December 2021.

The Principal Planning Officer reminded the Members that the application had previously been deferred by the Committee, on 17th August, for a site visit in order that Members could better familiarise themselves with the site and area. The site visit had taken place on 9th September.  The application was subsequently deferred for a second time by the Committee, on 14th September, to allow the developer time to undertake further engagement with local residents who were opposed to the apartment development at the location in respect of parking and other issues.  As the application had not yet been presented to the Committee, all Members present were entitled to participate in its consideration.

The Committee was advised that a meeting was held on 26th May at Davitts Gaelic Athletic Association on the Falls Road. The meeting was arranged and chaired by the Chairman of the Clonard Residents Association, the developer, local residents and a local Councillor were in attendance. The agent had advised that residents had raised three issues of concern, namely, exiting parking and congestion issues, end user of the apartments and timescales for the development and potential construction works impact on the local residents.

            The Committee was advised that the agent had confirmed that, since the Planning Committee of 14th September, there had been ongoing discussions between the applicant and representatives of the local community. The applicant had stated that there had been regular contact with the Chair of the Clonard Residents Association.  The agent had also advised that community representatives were present at pre-application meetings whereby the design of the proposed development was discussed and that no changes to the scheme were proposed.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined that six letters of objection had been received, including a representation from the Clonard Residents Association, citing concerns with the following:

·         disruption and noise pollution during construction;

·         parking pressure/ lack of availability;

·         highway safety;

·         loss of light / overshadowing;

·         overlooking / loss of privacy;

·         lack of amenity space;

·         no prior consultation with local area; and

·         anti-social behaviour.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Members that, since consultation with the residents’ group, the Planning Service had received no further objections to the proposal.  The applicant had advised that the proposed end user for the development was to be Category 1 Social Housing apartments for the active elderly. Whilst that was welcomed by officers, there was no planning policy requirement for the apartments to be restricted solely to social housing and therefore no planning condition was recommended.

She outlined to the Members that the site was unzoned whiteland in the BUAP. In Draft BMAP 2004 and 2015, it was located along an arterial route in a designated commercial area. She explained that the redevelopment of the brownfield site and the principle of apartments at that location were considered acceptable. The provision of the retail unit was compliant with dBMAP and the proposed development would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal was considered to be sympathetic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with the details of the application which had been referred to the Committee by a Member.

            The main issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application included the impact on the character and appearance of the area; design, scale and mass; the impact on residential amenity and landscaping, trees and parking.

            The Principal Planning Officer advised that 14 representations been received from five addresses in relation to the application, raising issues including scale, massing and design, overlooking and loss of privacy, overshadowing and dominance, overdevelopment, loss of amenity, parking and other matters which were outside of the remit of Planning.  She drew the Members attention to the officers’ consideration of each issue within the case officer report.

            She outlined to the Committee that it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would integrate well with the existing dwelling and would not detract or harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  She confirmed that the extension met the angles test and was sufficiently separated from properties both to the sides and to the rear.  The Members were advised that, due to its orientation, it would not be dominant or result in any significant impact on residential amenity in terms of dominance, loss of light or overshadowing.

The Members were advised that the proposal was considered to be in accordance with Policy EXT1 of PPS7 (Addendum) Residential Extensions and Alterations and the SPPS.

The Committee granted approval the application, subject to conditions, with the final wording of conditions delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control.

The Committee was presented with the details of the application at the Royal Hospital Belfast in respect of an existing boiler plant which was nearing the end of its useful life. The Principal Planning Officer outlined that a new Energy Centre was required to meet and safeguard the growing energy demand at the hospital to serve current, proposed and future developments.

The Members were advised that the proposed development had been the subject of a pre-application discussion (PAD) with the Council.

He outlined he key issues which were considered in the assessment of the application including:

·        the acceptability in principle of the proposed development at the location;

·        scale, height and design of the energy centre building;

·        impact on the surrounding area;

·        access, parking and traffic management; and

·        drainage, contamination, air quality, noise and dust management.

The Committee was advised that DFI Roads. Rivers Agency, NI Water, NIEA Water Management Unit, HED and Belfast City Airport had all been consulted and were content with the proposed development subject to conditions.  Environmental Health, BCC Economic Development Unit, the Tree Officer and the Urban Design Officer had also been consulted and offered no objections.  The Principal Planning Officer added that no third party objections were received in respect of the application.

The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to conditions, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions subject to no new substantive issues being raised.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the details of the Council application to the Committee, which constituted Section 4 of the proposed wider Forth Meadow Community Greenway.

            He detailed the issues which officers had considered during the assessment of the proposal, 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;

·        flood risk; and

·        other environmental matters

            He explained that the area comprised a mix of uses.  The site included an existing path network and pockets of open space immediately adjacent to the paths used for walking and cycling. The site was adjacent to residential housing, St Gall’s GAA and St Louise’s Comprehensive school.  He outlined that it ran through the Bog Meadows which was owned/managed by Ulster Wildlife and areas of existing mature trees.

The Committee was advised that, within BUAP 2001, the application site was located within undesignated whiteland and was adjacent to an important natural habitat and a housing action area. Within dBMAP the site was located within an area of existing open space; urban landscape wedge and BT162/05 Community Greenway. It was also adjacent to BT102/10 SLNCI. The site was within the development limits of Belfast.

The Members were advised that Environmental Health, NI Water, Rivers Agency, Historic Environment Division (Historic Monuments); DAERA Water Management Unit, DAERA Regulation Unit; Shared Environmental Services and DAERA Natural Environment Division were consulted in respect of the proposal and had raised no issues of concern subject to conditions.

However, at the time of publishing the report, final responses were outstanding from the Council’s Tree Officer and the Landscape, Planning and Development team. They had been re-consulted with amended plans which addressed issues raised in the initial DFI Roads and Tree officer responses.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the proposal had been assessed against the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP), dBMAP v2004, dBMAP v2014, PPS 2, PPS 3, PPS 6, PPS8, and PPS 15.  Having regard to the assessment of the Development Plan and relevant material considerations, he explained that the proposal was considered acceptable.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby the Natural Environment Division (NED) had confirmed that the approach of a negative condition relating to the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) was acceptable to them.  A final response had also been received from DFI Roads confirming that they had no objections.

The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to conditions, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions subject to no new substantive issues being raised by consultees and third parties.

            The Committee was apprised of the details of the application.

            The main issues which officers had considered during their assessment of the application included the principle of development; access, movement, and road safety; impact on built heritage; flood risk; landscaping and other environmental matters.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the area was defined by retail, terraced residential dwellings and church buildings. He outlined that the BUAP 2001 defined most of the northern side of the site as part of a Housing Renewal Area while the southern side was unzoned whiteland. dBMAP (both versions) defined the Albertbridge Road as an arterial route and the site ran adjacent to a number of Shopping/Commercial Areas. He explained that the proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP), Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (dBMAP both versions), PPS 3, PPS 6, and PPS 15.

The Committee was advised that Environmental Health, the Tree Officer, BCC Landscape and Development, NI Water, HED Historic Monuments, HED Historic Buildings, Rivers Agency, DAERA Regulation Unit and DFI Roads were consulted and had raised no issues of concern.

The Committee granted approval the application, subject to conditions, with the final wording of conditions delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control.

.The Principal Planning Officer presented the details of the application to the Committee.  He explained that it followed a brief Pre Application Discussion process.

            He outlined the key issues which officers had considered in assessing the application, including the principle of development and use; the principle of demolition; scale, massing and design; amenity and open space; access, movement, parking and transportation, including road safety; flood risk; other environmental matters; and developer contributions.

The Members were advised that the application related to a cleared brownfield site within the development limits and within the city centre of Belfast in BUAP, and both versions of Draft BMAP (2004 and 2014). The site was unzoned whiteland within BUAP, unzoned whiteland but also within the main office area/ Commercial District Character Area in dBMAP (2004); and unzoned whiteland but also within the Commercial District Character Area in dBMAP (2015). The site was also in the vicinity of the Linen Conservation Area.

He explained that the proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP), Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP), PPS3, PPS6, PPS7, PPS8, PPS12, PPS13 and PPS15.

No objections had been raised by consultees, however, a response from the Council’s Waste Management Unit was outstanding. He confirmed that following advertisement in the local press and neighbour notification, no written representations were received.

The Principal Planning Officer drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items pack.  The agent had requested that the wording of condition no.11, relating to submission of details of materials, is changed from “prior to commencement of works on site” to read “prior to commencement of elevational work on site”.  He explained that there was pressure on the applicant to deliver the scheme by August 2023, in advance of the new academic year, and therefore a need for construction commencement in January 2022.  He outlined that the agent was seeking amended wording to allow works to commence on site before the condition was discharged.

            He explained that officers, having regard to the nature of the proposal which was essentially an amendment to a previously approved scheme, advised that the Council, as Planning Authority, had a very significant role to play in the delivery of new development and hence it had been considered appropriate to bring the application before the Planning Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer also advised the Committee that the report stated that public realm enhancements to the adjacent pavements would be required in line with the original approval in accordance with details to be agreed by the Council. The agent had confirmed that the applicant would be agreeable to such a condition, worded to require the public realm works details prior to occupation and worded to be in reference to the extant permission.

            He outlined to the Members that Environmental Health had raised concerns around the 5mm per second peak particle velocity (ppv) vibration limit in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7f

            (Councillor Spratt, having declared an interest in this item, left the meeting and did not participate in the discussion or vote)

            The Committee was presented with the details of the application for full planning permission for the demolition of 3no. existing blocks of flats (30 units) and the construction of 23 dwelling units (10 houses and 13 apartments) with associated site works for the provision of social housing.  The Principal Planning officer explained that the application was in front of the Committee for consideration as a statutory consultee, DFI Roads, had submitted an objection to it which was contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

She outlined the main issues which had been considered in the assessment of the proposal which included:

·        the principle of development;

·        design, impact on character and appearance of the area;

·        impact on amenity;

·        access, movement and parking;

·        flooding; and

·        infrastructure capacity.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that the site was located on unzoned whiteland in the BUAP, draft BMAP 2004 and dBMAP 2015. The redevelopment of the brownfield site and the principle of social housing at the location was long established and considered acceptable.

            The Members were advised that the proposed development would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the surrounding area. She explained that it was considered to be sympathetic in its built form, scale, massing and appearance with the surrounding area and neighbouring properties. It was considered that the proposal would not raise any unacceptable issues in relation to residential amenity including overshadowing, loss of light or overlooking.

She advised the Committee that the proposal was unlikely to have a significant impact on the local road network in terms of traffic, road safety and parking. The Members were advised that provision for parking had been incorporated at a ratio of just over 1 space per dwelling unit - 27 spaces for 23 dwelling units. She outlined that a reduced standard was considered acceptable due to the site’s sustainable location along with the provision of Green Travel Measures which included a travel card for each unit for a period of one year.  It was considered that DFI Roads’ request for three year travel cards for each unit would not be justified in this case now that there was a reduction in the number of dwelling units on site from 30 units to 23 units. She advised that the developer had agreed to provide a travel card for each unit for a period of one year, should approval be achieved and officers considered that to be reasonable.  She outlined that DFI Roads had not yet responded to the alternative request, made formally on 6th October 2021, to provide Green Travel Measures for a period of one year and not three years. 

The Committee was advised that Rivers Agency, Environmental Health and the Landscape Officer had offered no objections to the proposal.

NI Water had advised that, as there was a foul and storm sewer located within the site they would consider a connection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7g

(Councillor Spratt re-joined the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            The Committee was apprised of the details of the application.

The Members were advised that the proposed site fell within Belfast City Centre and Linen Quarter Conservation Area as outlined in the BUAP & dBMAP. The area provided both vehicular and pedestrian access to principle shopping and commercial areas in the City Centre.

            The proposed signage was required in association with a temporary project, LA04/2020/2469/F which the Committee had approved in April 2021, to provide a pedestrianised public space to include cafe/bar/storage container/canopy areas, performance stage, outdoor seating and associated works.

The Members were advised that DFI Roads and the Historic Environment Division were consulted on the application and had no objections subject to conditions and/or informatives.  No third party objections were received.

The BCC Conservation Officer had advised that they were unable to support part of the proposal insofar as it related to the signage, as the conservation team had offered an objection to the approval of the shipping container in the full application (LA04/2020/2469/F) due to its impacts on the character and setting of the Linen Quarter conservation area. Furthermore, it was the view of the Conservation Officer that the proposed signage on the shipping container was “inappropriate given its overly large size resulting in visual dominance of the area”, which was contrary to Policy BH13 of PPS 6.  Officers generally agreed with that view, but considered that, on balance, given current issues presented by Covid19 and the Council’s proposals to provide safe and vibrant external seating areas for users of the area, that a temporary approval was acceptable. 

            The Committee granted approval the application for a temporary period of two years ending with the date of the permission for the use (as previously approved) with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions.

            (The Divisional Solicitor provided legal advice to the Members, in respect of the application which had been submitted by Belfast City Council.  The Members were advised that those Members who had taken part in the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee meeting of 18th June 2021 and of the Special Council meeting of 1st July 2021, in respect of the purchase of the building, could still participate in the discussion and vote on the planning application with no conflict of interest.  She advised that those Members who had participated in discussions regarding the meanwhile use of the building, at meetings of the City Growth and Regeneration Committee, were advised not to participate.  As such, the following Members declared an interest, left the meeting and did not participate in the discussion or vote on the following item:  Councillors Brooks, Groogan, Hanvey, Hussey, Maskey, McMullan, Murphy, O’Hara, Spratt and Whyte.)

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the details of the application and explained that the application site contained a grade B+ listed building, namely, the former Provincial Bank of Ireland at 2 Royal Avenue.

He explained that the proposal was for a temporary change of use to community, recreation and cultural use for two years so that Belfast City Council (BCC) could pilot the concept of an “Imaginarium” – an immersive experience for visitors to learn about the city.  There were no physical alterations or works proposed to the listed building as all installations would be temporary and reversible and, as such, no Listed Building Consent was required.

He outlined the main issues which had been considered in the assessment of the case, including:

·        the principle of the temporary use at this location;

·        the impact on Built Heritage and Archaeological interests;

·        transportation including parking provision and impact on road safety;

·        the impact on amenity of nearby residents and businesses; and

·        human health.

The Committee was advised that the site was located within the development limits of Belfast in the BUAP 2001 and Draft BMAP 2015 (dBMAP, both versions). It was un-zoned, white land under dBMAP (both versions). In the dBMAP (both versions) the site lay within the City Centre Conservation Area, the Old City Character Area, the Primary Retail Core and Primary Retail Frontage.   

            The Members were advised that consultees including the Department for Communities (DfC), HED, and DfI Roads had been consulted and had no objections to the application.  No third-party representations were received.

The Principal Planning officer drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items pack, whereby a response had been received from Environmental Health.  The response recommended a condition to restrict the hours of operation to 10am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 6pm on Sunday and that agent had confirmed that they were content with that condition.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. S. McDowell, agent, to the meeting.  She advised the Committee that:

·        the temporary change of use of the former provincial Bank building to a multidisciplinary event space represented a significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7i

            (Councillors Councillors Brooks, Groogan, Hanvey, Hussey, Maskey, McMullan, Murphy, O’Hara, Spratt and Whyte returned to the meeting at this point.)

            The Committee was advised that correspondence had been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED) regarding the proposed listing of 1 no. electrical service pillar at a location near Blanchflower Park, Holywood Road.

The Planning Manager (Policy) explained that Article 80 (3) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 required that HED would consult with the Council before placing any building on the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.  He advised the Members that, should a structure be listed, that placed a certain responsibility on the owner, for example, a listed building had to be maintained in a way appropriate to its character and could not be altered or demolished without prior approval.

The Committee supported the proposed listing of the electrical service pillar.

            The information contained in the reports associated with the following two 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 Committee was advised of the overall Council financial position and the Committee financial position for 2021/2022.

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

The Planning Manager (Policy) provided the Committee with the response which had been received from the Minister of Infrastructure, in respect of the request for Council access to the Planning Appeals Commissions (PAC) Report on the Independent Examination (IE) into the LDP draft Plan Strategy (dPS).

            The Minister, in her response, recognised the work which had been completed to date, the challenges of the new process and the desire for the Council to progress the LDP through the processes.  However, the Planning Manager outlined that there was still no commitment from the Minister in respect of the access or a timescale for when that, or indeed a Direction, would be forthcoming.

            The Committee:

·        noted the response from the Minister; and

·        agreed the continued actions in accordance with the Committee’s decision of 11th October, 2021, in respect of the ongoing engagement, proposed correspondence, legal advice and proposed Steering Group.