Agenda and minutes

            An apology for inability to attend was reported from Councillor Spratt.

            The minutes of the meeting of 14th 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 10th January, 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 item 6b - Proposed development of 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 leave the meeting and not participate in the discussion or vote.

            Councillors Groogan and Hanvey also advised that they would not participate in the discussion or vote in relation to application 6c - (Reconsidered Item) 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, in that they had not been present when the item had been presented to the Committee at its meeting on 17th August 2021.

            The Committee noted that a site visit had taken place in respect of the below application on 13th January, 2022:

·        LA04/2020/0844/F & LA04/2020/0840/LBC - Demolition of existing boundary wall; conversion of former schoolhouse to cafe and office space with new 1st floor mezzanine; and conversion of former warehouse and erection of

extension to provide 8 no. apartments with associated cycle parking and

bin storage area at vacant Warehouse at Rathbone Street & former St Malachy's School at Sussex Place

            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 December 2021 and 10th January 2022.

            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 was advised that correspondence had been received from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI), giving notice that it intended to provide an accessible parking bay at 41 Geary Road.

Noted.

The Committee agreed the attendance of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson, or their nominees, at the annual agendaNi Planning Conference on Wednesday, 2nd March, 2022.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

            To update members on the project for the removal of deemed consent for estate agent signage in the Stranmillis, Queens and Holylands areas.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       Committee is requested to:

·        Note the update regarding the submission of the request for the removal of deemed consent for estate agents’ signage in the area identified in map including Stranmillis, Queen’s and the Holylands.

3.0       Main report

            Background

3.1       Members will be familiar with the strategic project to tackle the proliferation of estate agent signage in the areas of Stranmillis, Queens and the Holylands.  Members of the March 2017 Planning Committee endorsed the project and instructed officers to prepare and submit a formal request to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI).  A copy of that Committee Report is available here.

3.2       Following this instruction, officers liaised with DFI from February 2020, seeking their views and comments in advance of preparing a formal submission. 

            Current situation

3.3       The report has been updated following this engagement and is available here.  DfI has now invited the council to make a formal request to the Department as required by Regulation (6)(1) of the 2015 regulations. 

3.4       The request under regulation 6 is to be for an initial period of 10 years and will restrict Deemed Consent for advertisements granted under Schedule 3, Part 1, Class 3 of the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 2015 related to letting residential properties only (this does not include those related to other uses including agricultural, industrial or commercial, or ‘for sale’ signs).

            Next stages – DFI consultation process

3.5       Following formal submission by the council, the Department shall publish notice of the proposed Direction with details of the areas affected. This will allow at least 21 days for representations to be made to the Department, who are required to take these into account in deciding whether to confirm the Direction (with or without modifications), possibly after a hearing by the Planning Appeals Commission.

            Next stages – Implementation

3.6       Should the Department make a Direction the council will be required to advertise notice of it and also serve notice on owner occupiers in the areas affected.  

3.7       The council will also continue its engagement with key stakeholders to ensure that the scheme is well publicised, and support is provided to those operating within these areas.  An enforcement strategy for dealing with the scheme will be implemented.

            Financial & Resource Implications 

3.8       None.  It is anticipated that the successful implementation of this scheme will reduce the resources necessary to enforce estate agent signage in the areas.

            Equality or Good Relations Implications

3.9       None.

The Committee noted the contents of the report.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) is carrying out a review of Strategic Planning Policy on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy. DfI has circulated an Issues Paper to a range of key stakeholders for comment (see Appendix 1) with a view to issuing a draft revised policy document for full public consultation sometime in 2022.

1.2       The Planning Committee is asked to agree the Council’s response at Appendix 2, which will inform the Department’s review.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       The Committee is asked to consider and if appropriate agree the draft response to DfI’s review of Strategic Planning Policy on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy as set out at Appendix 2 on mod.gov.

3.0       Main Report

            Background

3.1       In March 2016 the Department issued a ‘Call for Evidence’ to help inform the scope of a proposed focused review of strategic planning policy for Renewable Energy development to which the council subsequently responded. Following an announcement by the Minister in April 2021 the Department is now undertaking further stakeholder engagement to assist in informing the preparation of a public consultation draft policy document which the Department aims to publish in 2022.

3.2       The Department anticipates that this review may result in an amendment to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) (DOE, 2015) as it is seeking to ensure that strategic planning policy on renewable and low carbon energy development remains fit for purpose and up-to-date in order to inform both the decision-making process as well as the Local Development Plan (LDP) preparation process, all within the wider contemporary context for energy and the climate emergency.

            Planning Policy Context

3.3       The provisions of the SPPS apply to the whole of Northern Ireland and they must be taken into account in the preparation of LDPs and are material to all decisions on individual planning applications and appeals by planning authorities. The current policy approach in the SPPS in relation to Renewable Energy (RE) is:

3.4       ‘to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve Northern Ireland’s renewable energy targets and to realise the benefits of renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance’ (Paragraph 6.218).

            Wider Policy Context

3.5       The SPPS sets out a range of objectives which seek to ensure that RE development makes an increased contribution to the overall energy mix in accordance with the Department for Economy’s (DfE) strategic aims for a more secure and sustainable energy system. The Path to Net Zero Energy, the Executive’s recently published Energy Strategy (December, 2021) sets a target of meeting at least 70% of electricity consumption from a diverse mix of renewable sources by 2030.

3.6       This review also provides an opportunity to consider how strategic planning policy can help address the climate emergency in terms of mitigation and adaptation measures as well as enabling a green recovery from the Covid  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8c

The Director of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that there were a number of major applications, which were time sensitive but would not be ready for consideration by the Committee at its monthly meeting in February, but which would need to be determined as soon as possible. 

The Committee agreed that a Special Meeting would be held, if deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and Building Control, in late February/early March, with the final date to be agreed with the Chairperson.

            The information contained in the report associated with the following item 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 the item as, due to the nature of the item, 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.

(Mr. T. Wallace, Head of Finance, attended in connection with this item.)

            The Head of Finance presented the Committee with an overview of the budgetary pressures facing the Council in 2022/23 and the cash limit for the Planning Committee, as recommended by the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 17th December, 2021.

The Committee:

1.   agreed that the paper should not be subject to call-in because it would cause an unreasonable delay which would be prejudicial to the Council’s and the public’s interests in striking the rate by the legislative deadline of 15 February 2022;

2.   agreed the cash limit of £1,462,301 for the Planning Committee for 2022/23 and the individual service estimates detailed in Table 3 on mod.gov; and

3.   noted the next steps in the rate setting process outlined in paragraph 3.18 on mod.gov.

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

·        LA04/2020/2615/F - Hot Food Take Away Unit on lands opposite junction of Stewartstown Road and Suffolk Road

·        LA04/2021/1242/F - Change of use from coffee shop to extension of amusements arcade on the ground floor

The Principal Planning officer outlined the history of the application to the Committee, whereby it had originally been listed for consideration on 17th August, 2021. It was withdrawn from the agenda to allow the Members to undertake a Planning Committee site visit, which had subsequently taken place on 2nd September, 2021. The application was then re-listed for consideration by the Committee on 14th September, 2021 but was subsequently withdrawn from the agenda following legal advice in respect of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) form which had not been uploaded to the Planning Portal. That information was subsequently uploaded to the Portal on 15th September, 2021.  The application was then due to be considered by the Committee on 21st October, 2021. However, priorto that meeting, the item was withdrawn from the agenda in order to deal with an issue raised by DAERA NIEA regarding waste water capacity.

She outlined that the site was undesignated whiteland within the BUAP and was zoned for housing within dBMAP (ref. SB05/04). The site was also located within the Lagan Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Belvoir Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCI) and a small portion of the site was located within the Hampton Park Area of Townscape Character (ATC). The site lay immediately adjacent to Lagan Valley Regional Park (LVRP).

The Committee was advised that there was an extant planning approval on a large portion of the site for 35 dwellings (ref. Z/2007/1401/F).  The Principal Planning officer explained that a recent application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use/development (CLEUD ref. LA04/2020/2324/LDP) had confirmed that works had been carried out in accordance with the previously approved development and could lawfully be completed.

The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items Pack.  The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee that the addendum report had incorrectly stated that an additional 19 objections were received following the latest issue of neighbour notification letters in December 2021. That was an error and a further 16 objections had been received at that time.  However, further to the publication of the report, three further objection letters were received, including one from Paula Bradshaw MLA. No new issues were raised.  Consequently, a total of 19 additional objections were received following the latest issue of neighbour notification letters in December 2021. The total number of objections stood at 231.

            The key issues which had been considered in the assessment of the proposed development included the impact on ecology; traffic, road safety and access; the character of the area and on potential rights of way.

The Members were advised that, throughout the process, numerous amendments had been received to address issues around the settlement limit boundary, the topography of the site, the inter relationship of units and internal boundaries, residential amenity and landscaping.  The Principal Planning officer explained that it was considered that the proposed development was generally respectful of the surrounding context and character of the immediate locality.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

            (Councillor Groogan, having declared an interest in the item, did not participate in the discussion or vote in respect of this item and left the meeting for the duration.)

            The Senior Planning officer reminded the Committee that she had presented the details of the application to the Committee at its meeting on 21st October, 2021.  At that meeting, the Committee had agreed to defer consideration of the application to enable a site visit to be undertaken to allow the Committee to acquaint itself with the location and the proposals at first hand, particularly to consider the useable amenity space on site.  The site visit had taken place on 11th November, 2021.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack where two further objection letters had been received in respect of the application, from Councillor Gormley and Councillor McKeown.  The Senior Planning officer advised the Committee of the officers response to the points raised within the objections.  She explained that alleygates could not be included as part of the proposal, nor could they be conditioned, as the area was outside the red line boundary of the planning application. 

            The Members were advised that the total number of objections, including the two which were included within the Late Items pack, stood at 77. 

            An objection which had been received since the last Committee report raised issues with the measurements presented in the original case officer report whereby it stated that “the gable wall of Block B was located approximately 10.3 metres from the rear wall of No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue” (para 8.16). The objector claimed that the measurement of 10.3 metres was actually from the rear wall of the primary terrace. No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue had a large extension at the rear, which extended approximately 5.6 metres from the main terrace. The rear wall of the extension was located approximately 4.75 metres from Block B. The objector stated that the measurement should have been taken from the rear wall of the extension as the proposed block B was located 4 metres from that rear wall. The objector advised that their rear yard was bound on both sides by 10 metre high returns and that the proposed Block B would result in the filling in of the gap at the rear and would close off any natural light coming into the yard. 

The Senior Planning officer explained that paragraph 8.16 specifically related to the impact of the proposal on the outlook for existing and proposed occupiers.  She advised that No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue had windows looking towards Block B on the rear wall of the primary terrace, however, there were no windows on the rear wall of the extension. Consequently, the windows potentially impacted by the outlook were approximately 10.3 metres from the proposed Block B.

            The objector had also raised an issue regarding the natural light experienced within the rear yard at No. 8 Shaftesbury Avenue.  The Senior Planning officer outlined that, with regard to the surrounding context,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12b

            (Councillors Groogan and Hanvey did not participate in the discussion or vote in this item as they had not been present when the item had been presented to the Committee at its meeting on 17th August 2021.)

The Senior Planning officer reminded the Committee that the full application had been presented to the Committee on 17th August, 2021 and had been deferred to allow the Committee to undertake a site visit. The site visit had taken place on 9th September, 2021.  Subsequent to the site visit, the application had been presented to the Committee again on 21st October, 2021, where an objector had outlined their concerns and the applicant had indicated that they were content to engage directly with them. The Committee had agreed to defer consideration of the application at that meeting to allow for engagement between the applicant and the local residents who had objected to the proposal.

            Subsequent to the meeting on 21st October, the objectors had submitted a letter to the applicant’s agent detailing amendments that they considered appropriate.  These included:

·        a reduction in the number of 1no bed apartments, with more provision for accommodation suitable for families. The objectors suggested a reduction to 3no apartments;

·        provision for 1 parking space within the site and a reduction in the requirement for on street parking; and

·        efforts to retain the existing rear return with existing architectural features on the site to be retained where possible. New brickwork should be consistent with the existing Victorian brick pattern and style.

The Senior Planning officer explained that no new matters were raised which had not already been raised in previous objections and had been fully considered in the original Case Officer’s report of 17th August and the Late Items Pack of 21st October.

She drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items Pack, whereby the objectors had submitted a further letter of objection and had also advised that they had not had any response from the applicant or agent in respect of their letter.  A statement from the agent for the application had confirmed that, following a review of the objectors’ requests in the letter dated 22nd November, the applicant did not intend to amend the scheme.

The agent had also confirmed to the Council, on 7th December that, having considered the comments and the requests from the objectors, the applicant did not intend to amend the scheme.

The Chairperson advised the Committee that Mr. C. Hughes, Mr. A. Hughes and Mr. N. Hughes, objectors, were in attendance, as was the applicant, Mr. L. Bannon.  He explained that as all parties had already presented to the Committee, they were in attendance to answer any points of clarification from the Members.

In response to a Member’s question, Mr. C. Hughes advised the Committee that the applicant or agent had not contacted any of the objectors in respect of their concerns since the meeting of 21st October, 2021, despite having sent them a list of their concerns.

Mr. Bannon, applicant,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12c

The Principal Planning officer outlined the details of the application to the Committee, which related to a mixture of uses, including residential, office and a café. The site was located within the designated City Centre and consequently, there was no objection in principle to any of the proposed uses at that location.

She drew the Members attention to the Late Items Pack, whereby a further 21 objections had been received in respect of the proposed development, including from Councillor Flynn and Paula Bradshaw MLA.  Consequently, a total of 286 objections had been received in respect of application LA04/2020/0844/F and 281 in respect of application LA04/2020/0840/LBC.  The new issues raised within the late objections included the following:

·        residents had not been given adequate time to prepare their objections for the Committee;

·        the proposal would have a negative impact on community cohesion;

·        Joy Street, Sussex Place and Rathbone Street were part of an established residential area - the status was confirmed by the draft BMAP which had designated the area, including the application site, as a protected city centre housing area;

·        the protected city centre housing area designation overrode the definition of an established residential area in Annex E of Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas;

·        the proposed development was contrary to Policy LC2 of PPS 7 Addendum, specifically criterion (e) the development did not contain any flat or apartment which was wholly in the rear of the property and without access to the public street;

·        the proposed development was contrary to para 4.12 of the SPPS, in relation to safeguarding Residential and Work Environs;

·        the Markets area should see an inclusive, community centred approach to planning;

·        proposed development was focused solely on private gain rather than community and civic uplift; and

·        the proposal denied the local community access to a vital part of its built heritage. 

The Principal Planning officer outlined the officers’ response to the issues which had been raised, including that:

·        information in respect of the January Planning Committee meeting was published on the Council’s website on Tuesday, 11th January, 2022 and representatives of the local community had requested speaking rights on the item;

·        the designation as an established Residential Area and a Protected city centre housing area were not linked and one designation did not outweigh the other. According to the definition of an established residential area in Annex E of PPS 7 Addendum, the application site was not considered to be an established residential area. Furthermore, Annex E stated that policy LC1 would not apply to designated city centres;

·        the application site was located within a Protected city centre housing area, as designated in dBMAP. As per para 8.13 of the report, Policy HOU 5 stated that permission would not be granted for any development that resulted in a change of use from housing within such an area. The application site was not currently used for housing and therefore the proposal did not conflict with that policy;

·        it was considered, on balance, that the proposed development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12d

            The Senior Planning officer outlined the details of the application which sought full planning permission for 10 no. general needs and 2 no. complex needs (social housing) dwellings with associated car parking, amenity space and landscaping.

            The Members were advised that the application was before the Committee as approval was recommended without the approval from a Statutory Consultee, DFI Roads.

The main issues which had been considered in respect of the application included:

·        the principle of the proposal at that location;

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

·        impact on amenity;

·        loss of open space;

·        access, movement and parking; and

·        infrastructure capacity.

The Senior Planning officer explained that the site was unzoned land within the development limit of the Belfast Urban Area, as identified in the BUAP, draft BMAP 2004 and dBMAP 2015. Historically, the application site was occupied by residential accommodation.

The surrounding area was predominantly residential in character. The site, when cleared, was grassed over and as such the application site was amenity green space, which was protected under PPS 8 Policy OS1 unless it could be clearly shown that redevelopment would bring substantial community benefits that would decisively outweigh the loss of the open space.

The proposal was for social housing, consisting of complex needs units and general needs housing.  The NI Housing Executive had expressed its support for the proposal. The Members were advised that the proposal would be secured for social housing through a Section 76 Planning Agreement. It was considered, taking all matters into consideration, in particular the past residential use on the site and the proposed provision of social housing, that the proposed redevelopment of the site for social housing was therefore, on balance, acceptable in principle.

The Committee was advised that car parking would be provided in the form of two in-curtilage spaces for each of the complex needs units.  The Senior Planning officer outlined that the 10 general needs dwellings would be served by 16 communal spaces proposed as parallel bays off the proposed carriageway. She explained that the Creating Places parking requirements were for 17 unassigned spaces and hence there was a shortfall of 1 parking space. She explained that a separate parking study had been undertaken, identifying that the surrounding streets could accommodate any additional parking spaces required.  She explained that it was considered that DFI Roads request for 3 year travel cards for each unit was not justified in that case.

The Members were advised that the developer had submitted a Travel Plan which detailed the appointment of a travel coordinator within the Housing Association to manage the site and the provision of a 1 year membership of a bike scheme for each dwelling and officers considered that to be reasonable. All other parking and access matters were resolved and final conditions on those were awaited.

Rivers Agency and BCC Environmental Health had offered no objections to the proposal.  NI Water had advised that there was capacity at the Waste Water Treatment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12e

The Committee noted that an application had been received seeking permission to install festoon lights along Church Lane, with a parallel Listed Building Consent application submitted seeking consent for those works attached to listed structures along Church Lane.

            The site was located within the Belfast City Centre Conservation Area. Overall, the Members were advised that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the area, including the Conservation Area, and would not be detrimental to the setting of nearby listed buildings, the amenity of neighbouring properties or be harmful to highway safety.

The application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press and no objections had been received.  Historic Environment Division had been consulted and offered no objections.

The proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the SPPS, BUAP, Draft BMAP, PPS6 and Sections 91 and 104 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.

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