Agenda and minutes

An apology for inability to attend was reported for Councillor Whyte.

            Alderman Lawlor declared an interest in relation to item 5b on the agenda, under the heading LA04/2022/0118/F – The proposed erection of 46No.appartment units over three stories, with associated car parking site and landscaping works and the alteration of an existing vehicular access.  146 Parkgate Avenue, Strandtown, in that he was employed as a Parliamentary and Constituency Assistant for Gavin Robinson MP, who had submitted correspondence in support of the application.

            The Committee noted that the following items had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·        LA04/2022/1861/F - (Reconsidered item) Replacement facade to active facade to facilitate the display of internally illuminated moving images (Temporary Permission for 5 years), 1-3 Arthur Street; and

·        LA04/2023/2640/F - Front porch extension. Two storey extension to side and rear. Internal alterations and External alterations related to energy efficiency improvements - Air Source Heat Pump, Solar PV panels, triple glazing & external wall insulation with rendered finish, 30 Dorchester Park.

            The Planning Manager reported that the application had been refused under delegated authority in February, 2023 and that the decision to refuse had been appealed.  He informed the Committee that the Planning Appeals Commission had requested comments on behalf of the Council with regard to live appeals, following the adoption of the Plan Strategy. 

            He explained that, at the time of the decision, the primary policy consideration had been the HMO Subject Plan, and that the previous methodology had shown that the number of HMOs in Glandore Avenue to have been exceeded, therefore, the proposal had been contrary to Policy HMO 5 of the HMO Subject Plan and was refused.

            He stated that Policy HOU10 applied a different methodology too calculate the baseline, which included the number of HMOs with a licence, and also the number of planning approvals which had not yet been licensed.  He explained that there were 80 properties with no HMO licence and therefore the appeal proposal did not exceed 10% of all dwelling units on Glandore Avenue, in accordance with Policy HOU10 and, subsequently, the original refusal reason could not be sustained.

            The Committee delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to provide comments to the Planning Appeals Commission in relation to the live appeal against the refusal of application LA04/2022/1839/F, following the adoption of the Plan Strategy, accepting that the policy position had changed in relation to HMOs, but expressing additional concerns in relation to parking and impact on amenity.

            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 the following two items 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.

            The Planning Manager pointed out to the Members that the application had been approved by the Committee, at its meeting in March, 2023, subject to completion of a Section 76 planning agreement and had been brought back to the Committee for re-evaluation following the adoption of the Belfast LDP Plan Strategy.

            He provided the Committee with an overview of the application and stated that it officers recommended that planning permission would be granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Committee granted planning permission and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application.

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

            The Senior Planning Officer provided the Members with an overview of the application which had been previously approved, subject to conditions, by the Committee at its meeting on 18th April, 2023.  He explained that since the decision had been taken, the Belfast Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy, had been adopted which provided a new policy framework for decision making.

            He explained how the application had been assessed following the adoption of the Plan Strategy and outlined the following considerations:

·        Consultation responses;

·        Principle of development;

·        Community infrastructure;

·        Open space;

·        Environmental quality;

·        Trees;

·        Climate Change;

·        Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS);

·        Promoting healthy communities;

·        Access and parking; and

·        Natural heritage.

            He reported that, having regard to the updated assessment and the previous decision of the Committee, in the planning balance, the proposal had been considered acceptable.

            The Committee granted planning permission and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions, subject to resolution of the outstanding issues in consultation with Environmental Health.

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application, which had been deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 20th June, 2023, pending a site visit and consultation responses from DAERA NIEA and Shared Environmental Services (SES).

            He reported that DAERA NIEA had responded and had offered no objection but had recommended conditions.  He stated that SES had advised that the proposal would not affect the integrity of any European sites and recommended a condition that would require a Final Construction Environmental Management Plan relating to drainage. 

            He informed the Committee that officers had responded to additional queries that had been received from Onslow Ravenhill Residents, which included the request for assurances on the route of construction travel and he advised that this information would be incorporated as part of the Final Construction Environmental Management Plan that would be secured by a planning condition.

            The Planning Manager stated that an outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) had been provided by the applicant with the application which estimated construction to last for three to four months with typical site opening hours from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday and from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays with no construction undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Duncan, on behalf of Onslow Ravenhill Residents, to the meeting.  Mr. Duncan explained that he was aware that Ulster Rugby needed to compete in both the United Rugby Championship and Champions Cup and the importance of the Kingspan Stadium to the domestic game in Ulster. 

            He stated Onslow Ravenhill Residents Group had 130 members and was not opposed to stadium improvements but was concerned with the absence of a biodiversity checklist with the application and stated that no final CEMP had been submitted and that it should be approved by both the Council and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency before building work would commence. 

            He stated that in April, 2023, EU Member States had voted in favour of a proposal to place wide ranging restrictions on the use of microplastics, which was subject to a three month scrutiny by the European Parliament before adoption and that the Planning Committee should take cognisance of the implications before making a decision.

            He outlined the benefit of using organic infill as an alternative to microplastics and that the Planning Committee had a responsibility to ensure that all risks to the environment had been considered and asked to Committee not to approve the application until such times as the final CEMP had been submitted and approved.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. J. Petrie and Mr. M. Holmes, on behalf of Ulster Rugby, to the meeting.  Mr Petrie explained that Ulster Rugby had taken the decision to install an artificial pitch at the Kingspan Stadium to provide a world-class playing surface for the province’s professional and domestic game.

            He stated that, as the governing body for rugby in Northern Ireland, Ulster Rugby had a responsibility to manage and develop a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application. He pointed out that a number of late items had been received, and that the agent and solicitor, acting on behalf of the objector, had requested that the application would be withdrawn from the agenda as there had been no consultation on the applicant’s Plan Strategy Statements and that there was a number of misrepresentations and omissions, including that there had been no consultation with the immediate neighbour.

            He explained that the Plan Strategy Statement was an interpretation of policy and that there was no requirement to consult on the statement and there were no proposed changes to the application.

            The City Solicitor highlighted the request to defer the decision to the Committee for consideration.

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

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the applications and highlighted the following main issues for consideration:

·        Principle of development;

·        Affordable housing and housing mix;

·        Adaptable and accessible housing;

·        Climate change including SuDS;

·        Demolition;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;

·        Design;

·        Impact on Listed Buildings;

·        Impact on neighbouring amenity;

·        Transport;

·        Waste water infrastructure;

·        Other environmental considerations; and

·        The application site was within the Malone Park Conservation Area.

            He explained that officers were recommending that planning permission be refused as the proposal would result in the unacceptable demolition of two semi-detached dwellings that make a material contribution to the character and appearance of the area and the proposed replacement dwellings would have a harmful impact on the Malone Park Conservation Area by reason of their excessive plot coverage, scale, height and alignment.  He added that it was considered that the proposed dwellings would harm the setting of the adjacent Listed Building, 1a Malone Park.

            He reported that DfC Historic Environment Division, NI Water and the Council’s Conservation Officer had objected to the proposal and that the Council had received three letters of objection and 18 letters of support.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. H. McConnell, RPP Architects and Mr. M. Gordon, Turley to the meeting on behalf of the applicant.

            Mr. McConnell explained that the current buildings on the site had been vacant for 20 years and were in such a state of dereliction that they were well beyond viable refurbishment, as detailed in the engineer’s report which accompanied the application. 

            He reported that the upper floors of the buildings had collapsed to the ground floor and that the properties were well known to Building Control and that there had been many visits to the site by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) to address ongoing issues of antisocial behaviour and risk to life, especially to children.

            He stated that, given the degree of dereliction, disrepair and near collapse, the repeated issues of recorded antisocial behaviour and the ongoing danger the properties present to the adjacent residents and to the public, the properties made a negative contribution to the distinctive character of the area.  He added that the proposal demonstrated that bringing families back to Malone Park, the high-quality design of the homes and the materials used, would enhance the area and the wider streetscape of the Lisburn Road. 

            He acknowledged the three letters of objection which had been received, but pointed out that none of them were from properties immediately adjacent to the site and that there had been a significant degree of support for the scheme, including the residents of the listed gate lodge property at 1a Malone Park.

            He highlighted the planning policies that the proposal aligned with and that the proposed dwellings were in character with the conservation area and supported the surrounding context and would enhance the character of the conservation area.

            Following discussion around the safety of the existing buildings, the Director of Planning and Building Control clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

            The Planning Manager outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key areas:

·        Principle of development;

·        Affordable housing and housing mix;

·        Adaptable and accessible accommodation;

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

·        Scale, Height, Massing, Design and Layout;

·        Access, Traffic and Parking;

·        Environmental Health;

·        Drainage and Flood Risk / Infrastructure Capacity;

·        Impact on the natural environment;

·        Ecological Impacts; and

·        Climate change.

            He informed the Committee that late items had been received, a letter from Connswater Homes that had reiterated the housing need in the area and provided rationale for not providing housing mix as per Policy HOU6, which included difficulties in letting three and four bedroom apartments and that there was a need for smaller families and singles.

            He reported a letter had also been submitted by the applicant which provided a rebuttal to the Committee report and reiterated that the proposal was for 100% social housing and stated that the applicant was content for this to be a condition of the proposal.

            He concluded by stating that it was recommended that the application would be refused, as the need for social housing had been acknowledged but did not outweigh design and layout issues and the impact on amenity and existing residents.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. K. McShane, Mr. M. Collins and Mr. B. Smith from CollinsRolston, on behalf of the applicant.

            Ms. McShane stated that the applicant had recognised the crisis in housing stock in the area and that, rather than come forward with a private development, intended to put forward a social housing scheme to address the urgent housing requirement. 

            She explained that the applicant had funds in place and was ready to build the development and allow occupation.  She stated that only one letter of concern had been received, which had been addressed and that letters of support had been submitted by Mr. G. Robinson MP and Connswater Homes.

            She reported that a need of 713 new homes had been identified in the area which had been substantiated with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

            Ms. McShane stated that the case officer’s report had outlined minor areas of design disagreement and that the architectural team had submitted a response, having regard to the Local Development Plan, rather than full adherence.  She provided the Committee with rebuttals to the following reasons for refusal:

·        Surrounding context and character;

·        Open space;

·        Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties;

·        Emerging environmental policies in the Local Development Plan;

·        HOU5: Adequate management arrangements and communal facilities;

·        HOU 5 and 6: Appropriate mix of tenures and a range of different apartment sizes; and

·        HOU 7: Wheelchair accessible units.

            She concluded by reiterating the critical housing need in the area and asked the Committee to reject the officers recommendation to refuse the application and grant planning permission.

                   The Committee agreed that consideration of the application would be deferred in order that further engagement could take place between officers and the applicant, to attempt to resolve the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues:

·        Principle of development;

·        Design, Layout and impact upon the character and appearance of the area;

·        Climate Change;

·        Affordable Housing and Housing Mix;

·        Accessible and Adaptable Accommodation;

·        Access and Parking;

·        Drainage;

·        Access and Parking;

·        Waste-water Infrastructure; and

·        Noise, odour and other environmental impacts including contamination.

He reported that one objection had been received concerned with density, parking provision, height, scale and massing, however no statutory consultees offered any objection.

            He stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal had been considered acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission would be granted.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor Groogan,

Seconded by Councillor Hanvey,

              “That consideration of the application be deferred in order that Members could receive more detail on discount market rent.”

Amendment

Moved by Alderman McCullough,

Seconded by Alderman Lawlor,

            “That planning permission is granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement to secure affordable housing authority is delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 76 planning agreement and to deal with any other matters which may arise.”

            The amendment was put to the Committee as the substantive motion and passed.

            The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application, and highlighted the following key areas for consideration:

·        Principle of development;

·        Affordable housing and Housing Mix;

·        Accessible and adaptable accommodation;

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

·        Climate change;

·        Access and parking;

·        Drainage;

·        Waste-water infrastructure;

·        Ecological Impacts; and

·        Noise, odour, and other environmental impacts including contamination.

            He informed the Committee that two additional objections had been received from the same objector, and that final comments from DfI Roads and DfI Rivers were outstanding.

            He stated that, on balance, the proposed scheme could be considered an exception to the policy provisions of Policy OS1 of the Plan Strategy, subject to a Section 76 agreement to secure the provision of social housing and that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal had been considered acceptable and officers were recommending that the application would be approved.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions, and a Section 76 planning agreement to secure the development as affordable housing and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and the Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and explained that the site was an existing area of open space and an important community asset. 

            She stated that the proposal sought to upgrade the existing facilities and included the undernoted elements which would benefit the local and wider community:

·        A new 3G pitch;

·        Flood attenuation area;

·        Bowling pavilion refurbishment;

·        Play areas;

·        Pump track;

·        Dog exercise area;

·        Events space;

·        Allotment improvements; and

·        Pathways, lighting, landscaping and planting.

            She reported that one third party representation had been received which raised concern regarding a proposed community hub to replace the existing community centre on the main Ballysillan Road, however, she pointed out that the application did not include proposals for a community hub.

            She stated that the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions, as it complied with the Plan Strategy and BUAP/dBMAP designations and the consultees had offered no objections.

            In response to a question from a Member related to the materials to be used in the construction of the proposed 3G pitch, the Principal Planning Officer explained that typically a rubber infill would be used, however, she would need to clarify the exact materials in the proposal.  She further stated that neither DAERA or SES had objected to the proposal, and that a condition could be added to the application that would require officers to liaise with DEARA and SES, specifically with regard to the surface materials of the 3G pitch.

Proposal

            Moved by Alderman McCullough,

            Seconded by Alderman Lawlor,

                 “That the Committee grants planning permission, subject to conditions, and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters which may arise.”

Amendment

            Moved by Councillor T. Brooks,

            Seconded by Councillor Hanvey,

                 “That the Committee grants planning permission, subject to conditions and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).”

            On a vote four Members voted for the amendment and fifteen against and it was declared lost.

            The proposal, standing in the name of Alderman McCullough was then put to the Committee and, on a vote, sixteen Members voted for the proposal, one against and two no votes and it was declared carried.

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained that condition 36 of the proposed development, which had been approved by the Committee in September, 2022, stipulated that the maximum length of stay of occupants would be 30 days with no return for 30 days, and that the applicant’s view was that the stipulation was restrictive, given the location and the potential to attract key customers, such as those working in the construction, technology and film industries. 

            He explained that the original condition was in place to preclude permanent residential use within the proposed building as the application had not been considered against residential use policies.

            He reported that a maximum stay of 180 days had been explored by the applicant in conjunction with Council officers and it had been determined that a 180 day policy had the potential to materially change the hotel/aparthotel use, as approved, to residential use.  In light of this, a 90 day maximum stay had been considered as acceptable, and would not trigger a change of use to residential, which would undermine the original approval.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions, including a maximum stay of 90 days (rather than 180 days) and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters which might arise.

            The Planning Manager outlined the application to the Committee and pointed out that the applicant had submitted a late addition to the application, which explained that the applicant considered that Holywood Town Centre and Kings Square Local Centre were not suitable centres to meet the needs of the local Connswater catchment and that the proposed site remained a more convenient location to ensure that the existing customer needs were met.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters which may arise.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and highlighted the following key issues:

·        Principle of development;

·        Demolition;

·        Design;

·        Built heritage;

·        Climate change;

·        Access and parking;

·        Drainage and Waste-Water Infrastructure;

·        Noise, odour and other environmental impacts;

·        Trees and landscaping; and

·        Ecological issues

·        .

            She reported that statutory consultees had offered no objections, subject to conditions and no representations had been received.

            She stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal had been considered acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission would be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other matters which may arise.