Agenda and minutes

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

            The minutes of the meeting of 18th January 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 February, 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 7c, namely LA04/2021/1702/F - 807 - 809 Lisburn Road and incorporating part of Kingsbridge Private Hospital at Nos 811- 815 Lisburn Road, in that he had met with Council representatives in respect of the application and had expressed an opinion.  He therefore left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and did not participate in the vote.

            Councillor Murphy declared an interest in item 7d, namely LA04/2021/2154/F - Change of approved design for Community Hub building for a community led mix use regeneration scheme at the site of the former St Gemma's School,in that he had previously engaged with the ABC trust on previous plans.  He therefore left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and did not participate in the vote.

            The Committee noted that a site visit had taken place to the below application site on Monday, 14th February 2022:

·        LA04/2021/0911/F - Demolition of existing building and construction of 9 no. apartments and associated site works at 236 Upper Newtownards Road

            The Committee agreed to hold a pre-emptive site visit and briefing in respect of the above application.

            The Committee agreed to hold a pre-emptive site visit in respect of the above application.

            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 11th January and 7th February.

            The Committee noted that the correspondence had been considered last month and had been included in the agenda in error.

The Committee noted that correspondence had been received from the Housing Executive in relation to a Vesting Order for Lands at Alloa Street.

THE COMMITTEE DEALT WITH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN PURSUANCE OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO IT BY THE COUNCIL UNDER STANDING ORDER 37(e)

            The Committee noted that the following items had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·        LA04/2021/1808/F - Residential development comprising of 14 dwellings, access from Lagmore View Lane and Lagmore Glen, completion of remaining areas of open space (including hard and soft landscaping), provision of parking bays, speed bumps and bollards to improve road safety along Lagmore View Road, and all associated site works on lands South and East of 148-163 Lagmore View Lane North and West of 37 81 82 and 112 Lagmore Glen and Lagmore View Road - withdrawn by officers in order to further examine relevant issues;

·        (Reconsidered Item) 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 - withdrawn in order that officers are able to provide more information to the Committee in relation to the detailed requirements of the proposed Section 76 Agreement.

·        LA04/2020/0559/F & LA04/2020/0562/DCA – Renovation and single storey rear extension to dwelling, construction of a new detached garage and new entrance gates, pillars and boundary fence at 24 Malone Park - withdrawn by officers upon advice of the Divisional Solicitor.

The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this item in order to undertake a site visit.

The Committee was advised that the application had originally been listed for consideration by the Planning Committee on 16thMarch, 2021.  The application was withdrawn from the agenda and the Committee had agreed to hold a pre-emptive site visit. The site visit had taken place on 8thApril, 2021.  It was then on the agenda for the Committee meeting of 20thApril, 2021.  At that meeting, the Committee had agreed to defer consideration of it to allow further engagement to take place between the developer and local residents. It was subsequently on the agenda of the 14th September, 2021, however, it was again withdrawn to allow further engagement between the developer and local residents.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that the application was originally deferred in April 2021 to allow for further engagement between the developer and the local community. She outlined that, despite considerable delays already, the agent had requested further time to complete a separate PAD process prior to the Council making a decision on the application. To date, she explained that no further information or amended drawings had been received. 

The applicant had submitted a Pre-Application Discussion (PAD) in January 2022 in relation to alternative mixed use proposals for the site. The Members were advised that the proposals were fundamentally different to the scheme proposed under the application in front of the Committee and would therefore require a fresh planning application to be made if the applicant wished to pursue that option.  She explained that officers considered that deferral through Committee was not the forum to consider alternative schemes which, in themselves, would be required to follow due process.

The Committee was advised that, having afforded an additional 10 months within the process to resolve any local issues, officers considered that the application should be presented to draw it to a conclusion as nothing new had been presented in respect of the application.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby correspondence had been submitted from an objector stating that the PAD proposals should be shared with the Members.  The Principal Planning officer explained that the PAD which had been submitted was not yet valid.  She added that an additional 182 objections had been received to the proposed development and that Councillors Gormley and McKeown had both submitted objections in respect of the application.

            The main issues raised by objectors included:

·        a lack of consultation with the community;

·        poor quality and amenity of living space;

·        overdevelopment;

·        overshadowing;

·        fire safety concerns; and

·        the destruction of built heritage

The issues had been addressed within the Case officer’s report.

The Principal Planning officer presented the details of the application to the Committee.

She outlined that the key issues which had been considered during the assessment included:

·        the principle of demolition;

·        impact on character of the area and nearby listed buildings;

·        impact on residential amenity;

·        impact on sewage infrastructure;

·        adequacy of proposed amenity space; and

·        social housing need in the area

The site was not zoned for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11b

            The Planning Manager (Development Management) presented the details of the application to the Committee.

            The Members were advised that the site was located within the development limits of Belfast in both the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and both versions of draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 (dBMAP).  It was within a draft Area of Townscape Character (ATC).

The main issues which had been considered included the principle of the proposal at that location; demolition; impact on the character and appearance of the area; impact on built heritage, impact on amenity, access, parking and transport; infrastructure capacity; and impact on human health.

The Planning Manager outlined that the principle of residential redevelopment was acceptable on the basis that the site was within the development limits in both the extant and draft plans and historically would have been used as a dwelling. The Development Plan did not preclude housing from the location.

He explained that it was considered that the existing building made a positive contribution to the character of the area and its demolition would normally present concerns. However, the difficult history of building was a material consideration and justified the removal of the building. Notwithstanding, he advised that it was still necessary for the applicant to demonstrate an acceptable redevelopment proposal and “putback”. It was considered that the design of the proposed apartments, in terms of their design, scale, massing and site coverage, would be inappropriate for the site and locality and would harm the character and appearance of the area.

The Committee was advised that sixteen letters of objection had been received, citing issues with parking and traffic; failure to respect the built context/local character of the area; concerns regarding the design and layout of the proposal; overdevelopment of the site; impact on listed buildings; impact on residential amenity; inadequate amenity provision; noise; security and health and safety concerns; inaccurate plans; unacceptable use; that further engagement with victims of the abuse scandal was required and that it was contrary to planning policy.

            The Members were advised that the Council’s Conservation Officer and Urban Design Officer had submitted objections in relation to the proposals.  The Conservation Officer had concluded that the building made a positive contribution to the surrounding area and that its demolition would be contrary to policy. However, in this particular case, the building had a very difficult history as the site was formerly the Kincora Boys’ Home and had been subject to a Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry in 2017. The Members were advised that that was a relevant material consideration which could be taken into account in the assessment of the application. Given the difficult history of the site, it was considered that the demolition of the building would be acceptable. However, the acceptability of the application was still dependent on a suitable redevelopment scheme.

The Conservation officer raised concerns about the redevelopment scheme, citing issues around overdevelopment, scale and massing. They had commented that the extensive site coverage represented significant overdevelopment of the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11c

The Senior Planning officer presented the details of the application for the demolition of no. 124-126 Lisburn Road and the erection of a 3.5 storey building with two commercial units at ground floor level and 11 apartments above.

            The main issues which had been considered included:

·        the principle of demolition of the existing buildings and the design and form of the replacement building in the conservation area;

·        the potential impact on the character of the area and nearby listed buildings;

·        the potential impact on residential amenity of existing and proposed residents;

·        access, movement and parking; and

·        infrastructure capacity

The Members were advised that the site was located within the Malone Conservation Area and involved the demolition of two buildings. It was not considered that the buildings made a material contribution to the Conservation Area and therefore their demolition was acceptable, subject to a suitable replacement scheme.

In terms of amenity provision, he explained that there was a communal courtyard of approximately 120 metres squared, which was above the minimum standards within PPS7 of Creating Places.

The Senior Planning officer reported that the design of the proposed building reflected the traditional features of the street and appearance of the area.  He outlined that the proposed replacement scheme would offer an enhancement to the Malone Conservation Area and that the setting of the nearby listed buildings would be protected.

HED, DFI Roads, Rivers Agency, BCC Environmental Health and BCC Conservation Officer had been consulted and had offered no objections to the proposal.

He explained that there had been an offer of Travel Cards for three years, along with car club and Belfast Bikes membership, to off set any requirements for parking, which would be secured through a Section 76 Planning Agreement.

The Members were advised that the applicant had engaged with NI Water to resolve the capacity issues to serve the development whereby a proposal of attenuation to the storm run-off rate had been proposed which indicated that there was a solution for the storm and water discharge.

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 conditions and the completion of a Section 76 Agreement to secure the green travel measures.

            (Councillor Spratt, having declared an interest in this item, left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            The Principal Planning officer outlined that permission had previously been granted for a two storey extension to the private hospital, which was extant.

He explained that the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application included:

·        the acceptability of the proposed use at this location;

·        the acceptability of the design;

·        impact on surrounding context – listed buildings and draft area of townscape character;

·        access, parking and traffic management; and

·        environmental considerations - drainage, contamination and noise

The Members were advised that the principle of a three storey extension to the existing hospital was considered acceptable given that permission was previously granted for a two storey extension on the site.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the proposal had been the subject of a Pre-Application Discussion (PAD) and that it had been amended during the PAD process to address design issues raised by the Urban Design Officer, HED and the Conservation Officer. He confirmed that the Urban Design Officer, HED and the Conservation Officer were all now content with the proposed scheme.

The Committee was advised that the scale, height and massing of the proposed extension was considered acceptable and appropriate to the surrounding area. The design and materials had drawn cues from the immediate context and were considered acceptable.

The Members were advised that no third party objections had been received.

The Principal Planning officer drew the Member’s attention to the Late Items pack, whereby a response had been received from DFI Roads on 14th February. It offered no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions and to a minor amendment to the car parking layout which necessitated the removal of one car parking space.  A revised plan had been submitted to address that technical issue.

He outlined that NI Water had objected to the application on the grounds of insufficient waste-water drainage infrastructure capacity.

            A response had been received from NI Water in response to an officer’s request for specific evidence to demonstrate the following:-

·        lack of capacity for the specific development;

·        resultant detrimental harm and how it would manifest;

·        how the proposed additional floorspace over and above the previously approved 2 storey development on the site (LA04/2017/0005/F) would have a harmful impact; and

·        how the specific proposal would have a harmful impact over and above developments that had already been committed in Belfast (i.e. extant permissions).

In response NI Water had stated that:

1.     It had carried out extensive population and flow and load studies which had both confirmed that the existing Belfast Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) was operating above design capacity. As a result, NI Water had commenced the upgrade of the treatment works. The initial upgrade work would be completed by June 2023 and some additional capacity would be available from 1st July 2023. Further phases of upgrade work were planned throughout April 2021 – March 2027, subject to available funding;

2.     Continuing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11e

            (Councillor Murphy, having declared an interest in this item, left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

The Principal Planning officer presented the details of the application to the Committee, for a revised design and layout for a community hub building, which had previously been approved as part of a larger regeneration scheme under reference LA04/2018/1832/F in February 2019.

The key issues which had been considered in the assessment of the proposal included:

·        the principle of redevelopment;

·        acceptability of community uses;

·        loss of open space provision;

·        impact on neighbouring amenity;

·        impact on built heritage;

·        traffic and parking;

·        impact on trees and natural heritage;

·        contaminated land;

·        drainage and flooding; and

·        pre-application community consultation

            He advised the Committee that the site was located on unzoned land within the development limits of Belfast. The presumption was, therefore, in favour of development, subject to the planning considerations as discussed within the report.  He outlined that the principle of the demolition of the former school building and a mixed-use development, which included housing, retail and community use on the site was acceptable and was established under planning permission LA04/2018/1832/F.

The scale, height and design of the proposed revised community hub building was acceptable when compared to the previously approved building.

The ground floor would comprise training rooms, a dual use area for a café/event space, community offices, gym, boxing ring/training area, with ancillary administration offices, foyer, and toilets. There was also a secure and enclosed external courtyard area for training purposes. The first floor comprised two flexible use halls, changing rooms and gym, with a multi-use sports/community hall at the rear of the building.

The mix of uses was considered acceptable at the location, given the previous approval.

The Members were advised that consultees, including Environmental Health, had no objections.

The current application substantially removed a buffer landscape area which was an area of communal open space between the community hub building and the approved housing element due to a revised layout for the hub building and associated areas. The open space was relocated within the layout. He explained that the revision had been necessary for several reasons as discussed in the report, but principally they were required to allow the community groups currently using the site to continue to operate at the site during redevelopment works.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the proposal would provide a more extensive community benefit in terms of physical and economic regeneration to the area than what would likely have been derived from the grassed open space as part of the approved layout. He advised that the benefit of the previously approved open space was limited to the prospective residents of the new housing. In addition, the private amenity space provision for the new dwellings was compliant with policy and broadly exceeded provision within the locality. The proposed open space was broadly the same size and would still be provided for community use, albeit in a different layout.  On balance it was therefore considered that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11f

The Senior Planning officer provided the Committee with the details of the application.

He explained that the site was within the development limits for Belfast in both the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2004 (BMAP). The site was unzoned in BUAP 2001 and was zoned as a commercial node and area of parking restraint and was set along an arterial route within draft BMAP 2004.

He detailed the main issues which had been considered during the assessment of the case, including:

·        the principle of the proposal at that location;

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

·        impact on amenity;

·        access, parking and transport;

·        infrastructure capacity; and

·        impact on human health

The Members were advised that the principle of the proposal was acceptable on the basis that the site was within the development limits in both the extant and draft plans and had a history of planning approvals for housing in the past.  He explained that the development plan did not preclude housing from the location.

He explained that the proposal followed the general pattern of development in the area and that the design and layout would not create conflict and was in keeping with the local character and would not impact on environmental quality or residential amenity in accordance with PPS 7.

In terms of prospective residents, each unit had adequate outlook to the public street and all units were proposed to be built to a size not less than Housing Executive standards.

The Committee was advised that the design, layout and separation distances proposed were acceptable and would not significantly impact on existing residential amenity by way of overlooking, dominance, loss of light or overshadowing.

The Senior Planning officer outlined that an objection had been received from the neighbouring Crumlin Star Social Club. It had raised a number of concerns, including those relating to impact on trade, access to its property, security issues, interface violence, potential for noise pollution complaints and additional running costs. The Senior Planning officer drew the Members attention to the report which had addresses each of those issues.

In respect of the impact on parking and traffic, he explained that DfI Roads was content.  He added that Rivers Agency and Environmental Health had considered the proposal and offered no objections. The applicant had engaged with NI Water to resolve wastewater treatment capacity issues to serve the site and had provided correspondence from NI Water which indicated that there was a solution for storm and foul water discharge which could be addressed.

            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 planning issues being raised by third parties.

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

The Committee was advised that the application sought to vary a condition under Section 54 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to a previous approval relating to a residential development at Upper Dunmurry Lane, LA04/2017/1216/F.  The previous approval was granted in February 2019 and the development was substantially complete.

The proposal sought to vary Condition 5 which related to soft landscaping. The condition required that all soft landscaping would be carried out in accordance with approved details as set out in the approved Drawing No. 22A. The current application sought to amend the Drawing number, to take account of revised proposals which proposed to replace 1 ash tree and a grouping of young sycamore trees removed with 4 semi-mature lime trees.

The Members were advised that the Tree Officer was satisfied that the proposed replacement trees were appropriate and had no objection to the proposed variation.

One representation was received in respect of the application, raising issues regarding the short period for consultation, that the main contacts were on annual leave over the Christmas period and a lack of detail on the planning portal on the proposed amendments and how they would impact on the aesthetics of the site and what had originally been agreed by the community.

The Principal Planning officer pointed out that details of the proposed amendments were articulated to the objector and the landscape plan and cover letter, which were available on the portal, had been forwarded to the objector to provide clarity on the proposed amendments.  Taking account of the planning history on the site, the Committee was advised that the proposed changes were considered compliant with the development plan and other relevant policies.

            The Committee granted approval to the application and agreed that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the varied condition, subject to no new substantive planning issues being raised.

The Committee was advised of the proposal for the erection of a retractable canopy to provide cover for an outdoor seating area, on a temporary basis of two years.

The key issues which had been assessed included the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area; the impact on the setting of a listed building; and the impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The site was located within the Cathedral Conservation Area and within the setting of a number of listed buildings. The area was commercial in nature and the surrounding area was predominantly restaurants and bars.

The application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press and no objections were received.

Historic Environment Division had been consulted in relation to the proposal and had no objection to the proposed canopy.

The Committee granted approval to the application for a period of two years.

The Members were advised that the signage was to be positioned on the newly constructed Walkway Community Association Centre. Three brushed stainless steel signs were to be mounted on to the building, one on each elevation - front, side and rear.

The key issues which had been considered were amenity and public safety.

The Committee noted that the proposed signs would identify the new Walkway Community Association building and would integrate sensitively to the host building and would respect the amenity of the surrounding area.

DFI Roads had been consulted and had no objections. The signs would not prejudice public safety.

            The Committee granted approval for the three signs, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions.

(The High Sheriff, Councillor Hussey, left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

The Committee was advised that a Section 54 Application to develop land without compliance with Condition 7 of previous Planning Permission LA04/2019/2343/F, which had been approved on 24thFebruary, 2020.  LA04/2019/2343/F was for the “Proposed demolition/removal of existing temporary building and erection of new two-storey Community Centre and associated works.”.  Condition 7 of LA04/2019/2343/F read, “All external facing and roofing materials shall be implemented as specified on the approved plans’. Reason: In the interests of the Character and Appearance of the Area.

The change proposed was to omit the noted ‘PPC Aluminium Cladding Panels - Metallic Beige/Grey’ at the rear upper block of the centre and to install a textured render system in an off-white colour instead.

The application had been advertised in the local press and neighbour notified. No letters of representation had been received.  The proposal complied with the design requirements of the SPPS and would respect and be sympathetic to the overall character of the draft ATC in line with the Addendum to PPS6.

The Committee granted approval to the application and agreed that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the varied condition.

The Committee noted the details of the application which sought to construct an extension to the North-East side elevation of the existing community centre to create an additional 120sq metres space for a new fitness suite and associated changing facilities. An area of sloped ground to the rear of the site was to be levelled and hardstanding introduced to create space for two shipping containers for external storage. Given the nature, form and materials of shipping containers, it was recommended that they were removed after a period of three years with a more permanent storage solution, more fitting to the context, to be found.

The Department for Infrastructure Roads Service and Environmental Health Service had no objection. The application had been neighbour notified and advertised in local press and no third-party representations had been received.

The Members noted, in the Late Items pack, that a response from HED (Historic Monuments) had now been received and it was content that the proposal satisfied SPPS and PPS 6 archaeological policy requirements.

The Committee granted approval to the application, with temporary approval for the containers, subject to conditions and informatives with delegated power given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the conditions.

(The Committee adjourned for ten minutes at this point in proceedings)

            The Director of Planning & Building Control and the Planning Manager (Development Management) presented the undernoted report to the Committee:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       This report relates to two separate reviews of the NI planning system, or aspects of it.

·        Firstly, publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on its review of the wider NI planning system; and

·        Secondly, the Department for Infrastructure’s report on its review of the implementation of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

1.2       The main purpose of this report is to summarise the findings of these two reports. It provides an officer analysis of the issues raised and sets out next steps for dealing with the issues identified by the two reports. The report also takes opportunity to set out some of the current significant impacts that issues raised by the reports, alongside other factors, are having on the Council’s operation of its Planning Service.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Planning Committee is asked to note this report.

3.0       Background

3.1       The current NI planning system has been operating for nearly seven following local government reform and the transfer of most planning powers to the 11 newly formed councils in April 2015. As mentioned in the summary, two separate reviews of the NI planning system, or aspects of it, have been carried out over the last 12 months. These reviews have resulted in the recent publication of two separate reports. The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) published its report on 27 January 2022 and the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) published its on 01 February 2022. These reviews are particularly timely given the criticisms levelled at the NI planning system that it is not delivering and is having an adverse impact on growth and investment.

3.2       The main purpose of this report is to summarise the findings of these two reports. It provides an officer analysis of the issues raised and sets out next steps for dealing with the issues identified by the two reports. The report also takes opportunity to set out some of the current significant impacts that issues raised by the reports, alongside other factors, are having on the Council’s operation of its Planning Service.

4.0       NIAO Review of the NI Planning System

            Background

4.1       Belfast City Council has been engaging with NIAO on its review of the NI planning system since first learning of the audit in 2020. The Planning Service initially met with NIAO in December 2020 then provided written feedback to NIAO in January 2021, also responding to an information request to all councils. NIAO shared its draft report with the 11 councils in December 2021 to which Belfast City Council provided comments. NIAO then published its final report on 01 February 2022. A copy of the full report is provided at Appendix 1a. For ease of reference, the report’s recommendations are listed at Appendix 1b.

            Report’s Key findings and recommendations

4.2       The overarching message of the NIAO report is that the NI  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

            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.

(Councillor Spratt left meeting at this point in proceedings)

The Director of Planning and Building Control and the Planning Manager (Policy) presented the Committee with an update on documentation which had been received from the Department for Infrastructure in relation to the results of the Independent Examination and the main issues which had arisen from the statutory Direction which had confirmed that the Planning Appeals Commission conclusion that the Local Development Plan draft Plan Strategy (LDP dPS) could, with modifications, be considered “Sound”.

            A number of Members paid tribute to the hard work of the Local Development Plan team for reaching such a significant milestone.

            The Committee noted the update which had been provided.