Agenda and minutes

Apologies for inability to attend were reported from Councillors Collins and McMullan.

            The minutes of the meetings of 12th and 14th April were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 9th May, 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 5a, LA04/2020/0559/F &  LA04/2020/0562/DCA - 24 Malone Park, in that he had previously engaged with residents regarding the site.  He left the meeting for the duration of the item.

The Committee noted that a site visit had taken place in respect of the below applications on 27th April, 2022:

·        LA04/2020/0559/F - Renovation and single storey rear extension to dwelling, construction of a new detached garage and new entrance gates and pillars at 24 Malone Park; and

·        LA04/2020/0562/DCA - Demolition of rear extension (partly single storey, partly one and a half storey) and existing shed and summerhouse at 24 Malone Park.

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 Director of Planning and Building Control, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 2nd April and 9th May 2022.

            The Committee was advised that correspondence had been received from DFI Roads, advising that Apex Housing Association proposed to abandon land at Parkgate Avenue in order to facilitate redevelopment in the area.

            The Committee noted the information.

            The Planning Manager (Development Management) advised the Committee that there were a number of applications which might not be ready for the monthly meeting in June but which would need to be progressed before the July recess period. 

            The Committee agreed to hold a Special meeting in late June, if required.

            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 Committee 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 (NI) 2014.

The Director of Planning and Building Control provided the Committee with an update in respect of the final detail of the proposed consultation arrangements, the modifications documents and the results of the ongoing engagement with DfI in relation to the Local Development Plan.

The Committee noted the contents of the report and appendices, including the details of the proposed modifications documentation, consultation arrangements and ongoing DfI engagement.

            (Councillor Spratt, having declared an interest, left the meeting for the duration of this item)

            The Planning Manager explained that the application for full planning permission had previously been listed for consideration by the Committee on 15th February and 14th April.  The application had, however, been withdrawn from the meeting of 15th February meeting to allow officers time to consider a speaking note provided on behalf of the objector at 26 Malone Park. It was then deferred by the Committee at the 14th April meeting to allow it to undertake a site visit.

            The Planning Manager outlined the details of the application to the Committee.

The site was a 2.5 storey semi-detached residential home finished in red brick on a large plot. The dwelling contained an existing two storey rear return. There was parking to the side elevation and extensive gardens forming the front, side and rear elevations. The surrounding area was residential and comprised large semi-detached and detached properties within large plots. The site was within the Malone/Adelaide Park Conservation Area.

The proposed single storey rear extension measured 11.95metres in length with a height of 5.75metres.  When the proposed demolition was taken into account, he explained that the existing rear return of the property would be increased in length by 4.95metres.  The proposed garage measured 9.5metres x 6.35metres with a height of 4.49metres. The proposed pillars measured a height of 2.02metres with the gates a height of 1.8metres.

The key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application included:

·        character and appearance;

·        design;

·        impact on amenity;

·        impact on Conservation Area; and

·        objections.

The Members were advised that the proposal was considered to be in compliance with the relevant legislation, policy and guides. The proposed extension, garage and gates/pillars were deemed to be of an acceptable scale and massing to not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed footprint of the extension and garage were deemed to be within the 1.5 times limit as set out in the Adelaide/Malone Park Conservation Guide.

The Conservation Officer had been consulted and objected to the proposed ibex fencing.  The Committee noted that that had been amended and removed from the drawings.

The Committee was advised that eight objections and two letters of support were received and were addressed within the report.

The Planning Manager outlined that the application had been withdrawn by officers from the meeting of 15th February, to allow officers time to consider correspondence from an objector. 

He explained that it was alleged that the officers’ analysis of the application was misconceived and, in short, that the garage, which was described as an outbuilding in the original Committee report, should not have been included in calculating the amount of permitted building coverage.  He explained that officers did not necessarily accept that was the case, for the reasons set out in the original report.  Notwithstanding that position, the original report had also assessed the application by excluding the garage.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

The Committee was advised that an email had been received, on 16th May, from Mr. G. Magee, Quantum Law Solicitors Ltd. advising that, given the short notice of when the application was added to the Committee agenda, Counsel Robert McCausland was unable to attend the meeting.  Mr. Magee had requested that the application be deferred to allow a short period of time for them to prepare a summary of objections.  The Committee did not accede to the request to defer and agreed to consider the application before it.

            The Committee was advised that the application was previously approved by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 20th April 2021.  The Principal Planning officer explained that that decision had been subject to a judicial review, which was ultimately conceded by officers upon counsel’s advice.  The grounds of challenge in the judicial review application had alleged, inter alia, that the Council had failed to take into account material considerations, and that the decision was flawed for the following reasons:

1.     the report had failed to bring to the attention of the Planning Committee various correspondence;

2.     the report had misled the Committee as to DFI’s final consultation position;

3.     the failure to conduct a Transport Assessment;

4.     the consultation with DFI Roads had been inadequate;

5.     failure to deal with the issue of inadequate parking provision; and

6.     that the Committee had failed to scrutinise and enquire into the planning application before making its decision.

The Principal Planning officer advised the Members that, essentially, the issue in question had related to parking provision at the site. DfI Roads had initially objected to the application on the basis of insufficient parking and had requested a whole suite of information from the applicant. The information was not provided and, whilst DfI had subsequently indicated that they considered the application a significantly like for like replacement, it did not formally withdraw its initial objection or request for information.  The judicial review was conceded on the basis that the case officer’s report had inadvertently failed to accurately present DfI Roads’ position on the planning application which had led the Committee intoerror.

Further to the quashing of the original decision, the Committee was advised that officers had reconsidered the proposed development. 

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

The Members were advised that a Transport Statement, prepared by Karen McShane Transport Consultant, had been submitted by the applicant following the decision of the court.

The Principal Planning officer outlined that the Council had reconsulted with all previous consultees and re-notified all neighbours and objectors, as per statutory requirements.  Further to comments from consultees and review by the case officer, further additional information was submitted, including proposed floor plans and proposed site drainage layout.

            The Members were advised that one additional objection had been received, querying what plans were under consideration.  The Principal Planning officer outlined that drawing numbers were confirmed and superseded following the objection. She explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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

            He drew the Members’ attention to the Late Items pack, whereby a late objection had been received.  The objection had stated that the proposal failed to address need. However, the Planning officer explained that the principle of the development had been firmly established through the earlier planning permissions.  The objection also referred to Building Control and fire safety issues which were not planning matters.  Amenity issues were also raised and had been addressed within the Case officer’s report.

The key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposed development included the:

·        principle of redevelopment;

·        principle of Student Accommodation;

·        principle of proposed ‘out of term’ accommodation;

·        principle of a Leisure Complex at the location;

·        scale, massing and design;

·        open space provision;

·        traffic and parking;

·        impact on amenity;

·        noise;

·        drainage and flooding;

·        waste management;

·        pre-application community consultation; and

·        developer contributions.

            The Principal Planning officer reported that the principle of Managed Student Accommodation had been established on the site through the extant approval LA04/2016/1252/F. The scale and massing of the scheme were virtually identical with the extant permission, with the main difference being the introduction of an internally located, purpose-built leisure facility located where the external courtyards were previously approved.

The overall level of amenity provision was slightly less than previously approved, however, that was outweighed by the quality of the recreational facilities on offer, and the elevated roof terrace which would experience less overshadowing than the approved courtyard. Although located adjacent to the existing student accommodation block, given the orientation of the buildings, it was not anticipated that the internal leisure complex would impact significantly on amenity or enjoyment of the outdoor spaces, in what were already enclosed, north facing courtyards.

The Committee was advised that the design, although altered, retained the character of the previous approval, with finishes in keeping with the area and adjacent buildings.  The site was ideally located to serve both Queen’s University and the newly constructed Ulster University complex.

The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee that DFI Roads, DAERA and Environmental Health had been consulted and were content with the proposals, subject to conditions.  Rivers Agency, Belfast City Airport, Building Control and Shared Environmental Services had no objections to the proposals.  The Divisional solicitor reminded the Members that a late objection had been received, as highlighted within the Late Items pack.

He outlined that, if the Committee was to approve the application, officers recommended that it would be subject to conditions and a Section 76 Planning Agreement to secure the management of the student accommodation, controlling the use as out-of-term accommodation, controlling the use of the proposed leisure facilities and to secure community apprenticeships.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. P. Stinson (agent), Mr. N. Howells (on behalf of the applicant) and Mr. S. Deans (project architect) to the meeting. 

Mr. Stinson advised the Committee that:

·        the proposals involved the repurposing of the extant permission to include the development of an integrated,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11a

The Committee was advised that the Section 54 planning application sought to vary condition 6 of planning permission LA04/2016/1276/F to amend the trigger point for the implementation of archaeological works in accordance with an approved programme of works at the site.

The Department for Communities’ Historic Environment Division (HED) had been consulted.  The Members were advised that HED was the key body in relation to the matter and had responded with no objection to the proposed change to condition 6, subject to revised wording in respect of ensuring that archaeological remains within the application site would be properly identified and protected or appropriately recorded.

            The Committee was advised that the granting of a Section 54 application to vary conditions would create a new standalone planning permission and, therefore, should permission be granted, the other original conditions should be repeated as appropriate.

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

            The Committee was advised that the application was before it as the Council had an interest in the land.

            The application sought permission for environmental improvements and the reconfiguration of car parking space, which would result in the loss of three spaces.  A new pedestrian pathway was proposed, the re-cladding of the service plant area, provision of a cycle storage area, provision of two electric charge points, seating, planter boxes and a table tennis area were also proposed.

The main issues which had been considered were:

·        the principle of development;

·        impact on surrounding character;

·        impact on environmental issues;

·        impact on Parking and Road safety; and

·        impact on an adjacent listed building

The application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press and no third-party comments were received.

BCC Environmental Health Service, Historic Environment Division (HED) and DFI Roads had been consulted and were content with the proposal subject to planning conditions.

The proposal had been assessed against and was considered to comply with the SPPS, BUAP, Draft BMAP (both versions) and PPS3.

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

The Committee was apprised of the application which sought full planning permission for a modular temporary classroom unit to the south of the existing community facility. The unit would have a footprint of 12metres by 6metres.  The Members were advised that it would be 3.1metres in height, with a flat roof. The existing southern fenced boundary would be moved south by 8.5metres to accommodate the unit.

            DFI Roads, NI Electricity and BCC Environmental Health had been consulted and had offered no objections to the proposal.

            The Committee approved the application.

The Committee was advised that the application was before it as the installation was subject to Council funding.

The Members were advised that the proposal sought permission for the installation of 5 printed panels measuring 2.4m x 1.2m. The proposal formed part of a Business Cluster Support Project and was an Ulster-Scots themed project. The panels were proposed to incorporate photographs and text to explain important Ulster-Scots with local connections, including the Mulholland’s of York Street Mill; Thomas Gallaher’s tobacco factory; motorbike pioneer, Rex McCandless, whose business was on the Limestone Road; and famous local artists John Luke and James Humbert Craig.

The Principal Planning officer outlined the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application included the impact on amenity and general characteristics of the area and the impact on public safety.

The site was located on the boundary wall of 2 Midland Close, located off the Antrim Road. The area was predominantly residential in nature.

The proposal had been assessed against the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the Draft Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP).

The Committee was advised that the proposed panels were considered unacceptable as they did not respect amenity when assessed in the context of the general characteristics of the locality. The panels, if approved, given to their extent and position would not result in good design as outlined in the SPPS, and would be out of place in this residential setting. The panels cumulatively would result in clutter when read together and with the existing poster panel located on the gable wall of 2 Midland Close.

The scale, intrusive nature and cumulative effect of the proposed panels were considered unacceptable in this predominantly residential area.  The proposal was therefore recommended for refusal.

            The Committee refused the application and granted delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the refusal reasons.

The Committee was advised that the application was before it as the installation was subject to Council funding.

The Committee was advised that the proposal sought permission for the installation of 1 printed panel measuring 2.4m x 1.2m.  The proposal was part of a Business Cluster Support Project and was an Ulster-Scots themed project. The panels were proposed to incorporate photographs and text to explain the relationship of soda/ potato farls and their key role in the Ulster Fry.

The site was located on the gable wall of 98 York Road. The area was mixed use in nature.

The Members were advised that the proposal had been assessed against the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the Draft Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP).

The Committee approved the application for a temporary period of three years and granted delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions.

The Committee was advised that the application was before it as the installation was subject to Council funding.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the proposal sought permission for the installation of 2 printed panels measuring 2.4m x 1.2m.  The proposal was part of a Business Cluster Support Project and was an Ulster-Scots themed project. The panels were proposed to incorporate photographs and text to explain the role of Ulster-Scots in whiskey distilling in Belfast and also the invention of Belfast ginger ale and brown lemonade.

The members were advised that the panels were located on the gable wall and boundary wall of 142 North Queen Street and the area was mixed use in nature.

The proposal had been assessed against the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the Draft Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP).

The Committee approved the application for a temporary period of three years and granted delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions.

The Committee was advised that the application was before it as the installation was subject to Council funding.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the proposal sought permission for the installation of 2 printed panels measuring 2.4m x 1.2m, located on the side and rear wall of the premises. The proposal was part of a Business Cluster Support Project and was an Ulster-Scots themed project. The panels were proposed to incorporate photographs and text to explain the role of Ulster-Scots in philanthropy, such as the foundation of the Belfast Charitable Society and the role of an American Ulster-Scots descent, General Ambrose Burnside.

The host building was commercial in nature and was located within a predominantly residential area.

The Members were advised that the proposal had been assessed against the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS), Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) and the Draft Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP).

The Committee approved the application for a temporary period of three years and granted delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions

The Principal Planning officer outlined that the applications were in front of the Committee as the awnings were subject to Council funding.

A Member queried when BMAP had been quashed and requested that the items be deferred for further information for clarity in respect of the Area of Townscape Character (ATC) and Policy PPS6.

Moved by Councillor Groogan

Seconded by Councillor O’Hara and

    Resolved – that the following four applications, which were located within the same area of the city, be deferred and that a report be submitted to a subsequent meeting regarding the Areas of Townscape Character (ATC), how PPS6 is applied and when precisely BMAP was quashed:

·        LA04/2022/0275/F - Awning attached to existing façade at 26 University Avenue;

·        LA04/2022/0138/F - Awning attached to existing façade at 1 Rugby Avenue;

·        LA04/2022/0276/F - Awning attached to existing façade at 27 University Avenue; and

·        LA04/2022/0277/F - Awning attached to existing façade at 65-67 University Avenue

The Committee was advised that the application was before it as the awning was subject to Council funding.

            The Committee was advised that the application site was situated at the Lock Keepers Inn at Lagan Valley Regional Park. The site fell within the designations for an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Archaeological site and Monument, listed Building Curtilage and Regional Park Node.

The Members noted that the proposed application for a retractable awning cover on a removable supporting frame was considered by officers to be minor changes to the existing façade. The proposal was in close proximity to Lock-Keepers House (Grade B1) and Lock and Bridge Milltown Road (Grade B1) which were of special architectural and historic importance and were protected by section 80 of the Planning Act 2011. The Committee was advised that the proposal would not negatively impact the Listed Building and Lock and its setting in accordance with PPS6, the SPPS and Section 91 of the Planning Act

2011.

DFI Roads had been consulted and had no objections and Historic Environment Division (HED) had no objections with conditions.

No third party representations had been received.

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