Agenda and minutes

            No apologies for inability to attend were reported.

            The minutes of the meetings of 16th and 23rd January, 2024 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, 2024, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Alderman Lawlor declared an interest in relation to item 8d on the agenda, LA04/2023/4021/F - Change of use from dwelling to 5 Bed House in Multiple Occupation (amended description) - 166 Upper Newtownards Road, in that his employer, Mr. G. Robinson MLA, had submitted a letter of objection to the application.

            Councillor T. Brooks declared an interest in relation to item 2c on the agenda, Proposed pre-emptive Committee Site Visit for: LA04/2023/3778/F - Demolition of existing Russell Court buildings and re development of existing surface car park to accommodate two new buildings for the QUB Institute of Research Excellence for Advanced Clinical Healthcare (iREACH Health), including landscaping, parking, and servicing. 38-52 Lisburn Road, Malone Lower, Belfast, BT9 6AA, in that she was employed by Queen’s University.

            The Committee noted the Committee site visits.

The Committee agreed to hold a briefing and undertake a site visit.

            The Committee agreed to undertake a site visit.

            The Committee noted the provision of accessible parking bays at the following locations:

·        22B Cloghan Park;

·        34 Lothair Avenue;

·        4 Paxton Street; and

·        30 Hillview Avenue.

            The Committee noted the proposed abandonment.

The Committee noted the proposed abandonment.

The Committee noted the appeals decisions.

            The Committee noted the planning decisions issued in January, 2024 and, at the request of Councillor Carson, agreed that the monthly report would be presented to future meetings of the Committee in a dashboard format.

            The Committee agreed to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control, those Local planning applications to which NI Water had objected to.

The Planning Manager outlined the undernoted report to the Committee:

“1.0      Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       To report on the Department for Infrastructure’s public consultation on its review of the Development Management Regulations.

1.2       The Committee is asked to agree the Council’s response to the consultation.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       That the Committee gives delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to respond to the public consultation as per the ‘Assessment’ section of this report (pars. 3.7 to 3.30).

3.0       Main Report

            Background

3.1       The Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (‘Development Management Regulations’) set out the following provisions:

·        Hierarchy of development – the definition of Major development

·        Regionally significant applications – to require consultation with DfI on applications for Major development of a certain scale to ascertain whether they will be ‘called in’ and determined by DfI as regionally significant

·        Proposal of Application Notices (PANs) – the content of PAN applications required to be made to the Council. PAN applications set out the proposals for Pre-application Community Consultation relating to applications for Major Development

·        Pre-application Community Consultation – requirements for Pre-application Community Consultation including holding a public event and publicising the proposal in a newspaper

·        Duty to decline to determine applications where section 27 is not complied with – specifying a period of 21 days for the Council requiring additional information before declining to determine an application for Major development where the requirements of the PAN process were not followed

·        Pre-Determination Hearings – the requirement to hold a Pre-Determination Hearing for applications notified to DfI but which it returns to the council for determination

·        Schemes of delegation – requirement for Councils to prepare a scheme of delegation that sets out the classes of Local development that are to be determined by officers. Prevention of such applications being determined by an officer where the application is made by the council or an elected member, or the council has an estate in the land. Requirement to send a copy of the scheme of delegation to DfI and not to adopt it until it has been approved by DfI. Requirement to publish the scheme of delegation, making it available in the office and publishing it on the council’s website. Requirement for the council to prepare a scheme of delegation at intervals of no greater than 3 years.

·        Transition provisions – the requirement for Pre-Application Community Consultation to only apply to applications for Major development submitted on or after 1st July 2015.

            Public Consultation

3.3       The Department for Infrastructure (‘DfI’) is consulting on its review of the Development Management Regulations as part of the regional Planning Improvement Programme (PIP). The PIP is a response to recommendations of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports published in 2022, which seek significant improvement of the NI planning system.

3.4       The consultation proposes changes in three areas:

·        a review of the classes of development to ensure they reflect current and future development trends and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Planning Manager explained that the application has been approved by the Committee at its meeting in August, 2022, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.  He reported that the Section 76 planning agreement had been signed, but that the decision had yet to be issued due to the need to resolve the details of the public realm required by condition two of the previous permission, including the timing of its implementation.

            He stated that the matters had been resolved and the application was before the Committee for reassessment against the Plan Strategy, which had been adopted in May, 2023.

            He informed the Committee that the applicant had advised that the public realm would be completed prior to occupation, however, tree planning would be delayed until October, 2024.

            He reported that officers had advised that, in order to build in contingency in case of slippage, condition two should be reworded to the following:

‘The public realm improvements along the Bradbury Place frontage as highlighted in yellow on Drawing No.01A shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under discharge of condition application LA04/2021/0917/DC approved on X and completed prior to 31st July 2024 of the hereby approved development, save for the tree planting which shall be carried out during the first planting season following afterwards.’

            He stated that it was recommended that the application be approved with conditions.

The Committee approved the application, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegated authority 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

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

·        Principle of development;

·        Design, scale, layout and impact upon the character and appearance of the area including residential amenity;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Affordable housing and housing mix;

·        Accessible and adaptable accommodation;

·        Climate change;

·        Drainage;

·        Traffic, movement and parking;

·        Waste-water infrastructure; and

·        Noise, odour and other environmental impacts.

He explained that the density, design and amenity were acceptable, and that the application had met the housing mix provision with 20% affordable housing.  He added that no objections had been received from consultees, and that six third party objections had been received and fully assessed. 

He stated that the application was considered acceptable and that it was recommended that the Committee approve the application, subject to conditions.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor T. Brooks,

Seconded by Councillor Bell,

                 “That the Committee refuses the application on the basis of the height, scale and massing of the proposal, and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the refusal reasons.”

On a vote, four Members voted for the proposal and 16 against and it was declared lost.

Accordingly, the Chairperson put the officer recommendation to the Committee and the Committee agreed to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegated authority 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

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

·        Principle of development;

·        Affordable housing and housing mix;

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

·        Accessible and adaptable accommodation; and

·        Access and parking.

He explained that four objections had been received in relation to character, residential amenity, overdevelopment, parking and damage to street trees and referred the Committee to the case officer response which addressed those objections.  He added that no objections had been received from consultees, with the exception of NI Water, which had advised that there was insufficient wastewater treatment capacity.

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

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Collins, Collins Rolston Architects, and Mr. D. Erskine, NB Housing, to the meeting.

Mr. Erskine explained that the scheme design was fully supported by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and was designed to meet DfC and NIHE standards.  He added that there was a travel plan that would have three-year benefits for Translink, Belfast Bikes and car sharing.

He highlighted that the design evolution facilitated the relocation of the entrance in order to limit damage to the street trees.

Mr. Collins addressed potential concerns from local residents and stated that care had been taken to respect the character of the neighbourhood and would create an open space for residents as well as providing high quality vegetation and planning to the front and rear of the proposal.

The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegated authority 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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained that the application site was within an Intensive Housing Node where Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) were acceptable, in principle, under Policy HOU11.

            He highlighted the key issues to be considered that included the impact on the surrounding residential amenity/character, traffic, parking, access, waste and refuse collection and over-occupation and antisocial behaviour.

            He stated that the proposal complied with the relevant space standards and the location site was highly accessible and sustainable and that DfI Roads had offered no objections.

            He added that there was adequate provision made for bin storage and that bicycle storage could be provided within the garage and secured by a planning condition.

            The Planning Manager stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. Adam Larkin, Planning Agent, Ms. L. Rogers and Mrs. F. Rogers, the applicants, to the meeting.

            Ms. Rogers explained that she ran seven other HMOs and targeted young professionals as occupants as there was a huge demand for HMO accommodation from those who could not afford to rent an entire property.  She stated that young professionals were easy to manage and that the perception that the property would be used for student accommodation was untrue and that it was not an ideal location for students.

            She stated that she deliberately chose HMO properties on the Glider routes and only within the HMO Planning Nodes to allow tenants ease of access to the city centre.  She added that the property was located less than 100 metres from a greenway and would facilitate tenants who may chose to cycle or work to their place of work.

            She outlined the changes that were made to the application in response to local objections that included converting one of the bedrooms back to a garage for in curtilage parking and bike storage and highlighted that there was no requirement to provide additional parking.

            She pointed out that the property was residential and therefore would have no more bins than any other property within the location.

            Ms. Rogers stated that, as a licensed HMO, the operation of the property would be heavily monitored by the Council and that an antisocial behaviour plan would have to be submitted and adhered to, as a condition of the license, and that, in the eight years of operating HMO properties, she has never received a complaint from any neighbour or authority about antisocial behaviour.

            She concluded by stating that there would be no impact from tenants requiring parking, the bins that were currently provided, would be the same quantity as the neighbouring properties and that there was a misconception that the property would be used by students engaging in antisocial behaviour.

The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and delegated authority to the Director of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Planning Manager provided an overview of the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key areas for consideration:

·        The principle of a hotel at this location;

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

·        Impact on the special architectural and historic qualities of the Listed Building;

·        Archaeology;

·        Ancillary open space;

·        Climate change;

·        Traffic, movement and parking;

·        Environmental impacts;

·        Drainage and flood risk; and

·        Natural heritage.

He explained that the building was Grade B1 Listed, located in the City Centre Conservation Area and on the heritage risk register.

            He stated that the principle of hotel use in the location was considered acceptable and that the proposed alterations to the Listed Building were sympathetic and the proposal would help to secure the future of the Listed Building at risk.

            He reported that no objections had been received from DfI Roads, DfC Historic Environment Division, DfI Rivers, NI Water, BCC Environmental Health or third parties, however, the Urban Design Officer and internal conservation advice had expressed concerns with regard to some aspects of the design.

He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission and Listed Building consent were granted, subject to conditions.

            In response to a question from a Member with regard to the issues raised by the internal conservation advice and Urban Design Officer, the Planning Manager explained that, although concerns had been raised, it was a question of judgement as to whether the application was considered policy compliant and acceptable, and that, since the planning officers had concluded that the proposal was acceptable, it was not considered necessary to require the applicant to make a detailed enabling case for the proposal.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor Groogan,

Seconded by Councillor T. Brooks,

“That the Committee defers consideration of the application until further information is received with regard to concerns raised from consultees in relation to some aspects of the design of the proposal.”

            On a vote, four Members voted for the proposal and 14 against and it was declared lost.

            Accordingly, the Chairperson put the officer recommendation to the Committee and the Committee agreed togrant planning permission and Listed Building Consent, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and to deal with any other matters that may arise, provided that they are not substantive.

The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit.

The Committee considered the application and 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 to deal with any other matters that may arise.

The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit.

The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the application in order to undertake a site visit.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and provided a site location plan, existing and proposed elevations and a proposed floorplan.

            He explained that there were no physical alterations to the building in the proposal and all installations were internal and temporary.

            He reported that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, it was recommended that the application was approved, 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 to deal with any other matters that may arise.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an overview of the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues in the assessment of the proposed development:

·        Principle of development;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Impact on rural character of the area and design;

·        Lagan Valley Regional Park; and

·        Climate Change.

He explained that the site was located to the rear of the existing Stableyard and was currently an area of hardstanding which had been occupied by Belfast Activity Centre, a charity that provided outdoor adventure and learning.

He reported that the proposal was neighbour notified and advertised and that no representations had been received.

He stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable.

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 to deal with any other matters that may arise prior to issuing the decision, provided that they were not substantive.