Agenda and minutes

No apologies for inability to attend were reported.

            The minutes of the meeting of 13th February, 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 4th March, 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 7c 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 8b on the agenda, under the heading LA04/2023/3778/F- Demolition of existing Russell Court buildings and re - development of existing surface car park to accommodate two new buildings (five storey and four storey) for the QUB Institute of Research Excellence for Advanced Clinical Healthcare (iREACH Health), including landscaping, parking, and servicing. - 38-52 Lisburn Road, in that she was employed by Queen’s University.

            Councillor Whyte declared an interest in relation to item 8b on the agenda, under the heading LA04/2023/3778/F- Demolition of existing Russell Court buildings and re development of existing surface car park to accommodate two new buildings (five storey and four storey) for the QUB Institute of Research Excellence for Advanced Clinical Healthcare (iREACH Health), including landscaping, parking, and servicing. - 38-52 Lisburn Road, in that he had previously worked with one of the agents to the application.

            The City Solicitor declared an interest in relation to item 8g on the agenda, under the heading LA04/2024/0054/F - Change of use to conference centre facility with associated use as events/entertainment space - Former Print Hall, Ground Floor, 124-144 Royal Avenue, in that she was a Board Member of Beltel LLP.

The Committee noted the Committee site visits.

            The Committee agreed to undertake a site visit.

            The Committee agreed to 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:

·        38 Geary Road; and

·        219 Cregagh Road.

The Committee noted the appeals decisions.

The Committee noted the planning decisions issued in February, 2024

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 Committee noted the Council’s draft response to the consultation.

            The Committee agreed to support the proposed listing of:

·        Gate Screen, at Colenso Parade, Botanic Gardens; and

·        Gate Screen, at University Road / Stranmillis Road, Botanic Gardens.

The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained that it had previously been approved in April, 2020, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, however, the Section 76 Planning agreement had yet to be completed and therefore the decision had not been issued.

            He stated that the application was before the Committee for re-assessment against the Belfast Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy 2035.

            He reported that, having regard to the Development Plan and material Considerations, the recommendation remained to approve the application, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

The Committee agreed to approve 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 Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and explained that the application was before the Committee for re-assessment against the the Belfast Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy 2035 and that the proposal had been amended to include 12 social and 43 private apartments.

            She highlighted the following key issues in the assessment of the proposal:

·        Principle of use on the site;

·        Demolition;

·        Access, movement and parking;

·        Impact on natural heritage;

·        Impact on built heritage;

·        Design and layout;

·        Open space and landscaping;

·        Flood risk; and

·        Wastewater treatment.

She provided an update on the consultation responses and stated that all consultees had been satisfied, subject to conditions, and that 130 third party objections had been received, together with a petition and a letter of support.

She reported that it was recommended that the application be approved with conditions.

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, and deal with any other matters that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

(Having declared an interest, Alderman Lawlor left the meeting

while the following item was discussed.)

The Planning Manager explained to the Committee that the application had been approved at its meeting in February, 2024, however, the recommendation contained a requirement of a Section 76 planning agreement, in error.

            He requested that the Committee confirm that a Section 76 planning agreement was not required and recommended that the application be approved with conditions.

The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and agreed that a Section 76 planning agreement was not required, and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions, and to deal with any other issues that might arise provided that they were not substantive.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application had been before the Committee at its meeting in February, 2024 and had been deferred to allow Members to undertake a site visit.

            She reported that DfI Rivers had submitted a consultation response to the application which offered no objection, subject to an additional condition to safeguard against surface water flood risk.

            She provided an overview of the application and stated that 11 objections had been received and considered, there had been no objections from consultees and the application was compliant with the Plan Strategy.

            The Committee granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement being entered into to secure affordable housing.

            The Committee 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 explained the following key issues:

·        The principle of an HMO at the location

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the Alexandra Park area of townscape character (ATC);

·        Impact on residential amenity;

·        Traffic, parking and access; and

·        Waste and refuse collection.

She stated that the site was outside a Housing Management Area where Policy HOU10 applied and that there were no existing HMO properties on the street where eight HMO properties could be accommodated within the 10% policy threshold.

She reported that the proposal complied with the relevant space standards and was situated in a highly accessible and sustainable location, close to the Antrim Road.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that DfI Roads had offered no objection and a parking survey had been provided, she added that adequate bin storage had been provided in the rear alleyway.

She reported that two additional representations had been received following the publication of the Committee report, one letter of support and one letter of objection.  She outlined the reasons for support and objection and explained that those matters had been raised and considered in previously received objections.

She 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 was granted, subject to conditions.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. A. Olphert, Create Architecture NI, to the meeting, speaking in support of the application.

Mr. Olphert acknowledged that there had been a number of objections to the application and stated that, given the negative press around HMO properties over the past years, that it was somewhat understandable, however, the vast majority of issues associated with intensive forms of housing are specific to policy areas and those issues had arisen due to the lack of controlled development in those areas, serving mostly the student population.

He highlighted that planning policy permits a 10% HMO property allowance on a given street and that the Council had confirmed that the application property was outside of a policy area and, of the 88 properties that were relevant to the address, there were currently no HMO properties.  He stated that approving the application would take the percentage of HMO properties on the street to 1.14%, which was well below the permitted 10%.

He pointed out that many of the objections received had cited parking as a concern, however, DfI Roads had confirmed, in its initial consultation response, that under planning policy, parking was not a consideration and that the parking survey had indicated an availability of seven on-street parking spaces, despite an increase of only two bedrooms in the application.

Mr. Olphert stated that he believed HMO properties could help alleviate the pressures on local housing and explained how the property had been derelict and in poor condition when purchased and that bringing it up to HMO standard would be a benefit to the local housing stock.

He addressed concerns around noise,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

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

·        The principle of an HMO at the location;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the Alexandra Park area of townscape character (ATC);

·        Impact on residential amenity;

·        Traffic, parking and access; and

·        Waste and refuse collection.

She reported that 87 objections had been received and one letter of support and explained that the application was before the Committee following a request by a Member for the following reasons:

·        The application might negatively affect parking and traffic in the street (and surrounding area) and;

·        The application mighthave a negative impact on the character of the street (and surrounding area).

She stated that the scheme was compliant with Policy HOU10 in that the 10% threshold for HMO properties on Ponsonby Avenue had not yet been reached and that officers considered that the proposal would not be harmful in terms of traffic, parking, impact on amenity of the surrounding area or the Alexandra Park Area of Townscape Character.

She reported that DfI Roads had offered no objection to the application and, following the Committee site visit to the location, Members had sought clarity regarding bin storage and she confirmed that there was sufficient space to store the bins required by the supplementary planning guidance on waste infrastructure.  She stated that a condition would be added in the case of approval to ensure bin storage space was retained.

            The Senior Planning Officer 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. J. Duncan to the meeting who spoke in objection to the application.

            Mr. Duncan explained that he was objecting to the application on the following five grounds:

·        Over occupation and space standard;

·        Parking;

·        Waste and refuse collection;

·        Sewage and waste; and

·        Number of HMO properties.

He outlined each of the grounds to the Committee and highlighted that one proposed bedroom in the application was marginally under 6.5m2 and was located within the attic space, meaning that 4m2 of the area was under 6 foot in height, therefore any occupant would not be able to stand upright in 60% of the bedroom.

            He stated that, as an occupant of the street, parking was an ongoing issue and formed the basis of many of the objections to the application.  He added, although the property was located close to a bus stop, that did not mean that the occupants would use public transport rather than a private vehicle.

            He explained that the alleyway to the rear of the property was in too poor a state for householders to use to store bins and that the potential occupancy of the property would only increase bin usage.  He stated that, currently, the property was being rented and that the recycling boxes were scattered and unused at the front of the property and that the landlord seemed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a summary of the application and outlined the following key issues regarding the principle of development:

·        The site was outside the development limit to be balanced alongside case for enabling development, other benefits and any negative impacts;

·        Benefit of the enabling development – reuse of the three remaining historic pavilions;

·        Scrutiny of the financial argument for enabling development;

·        Delivery of social housing;

·        Delivery of an outdoor play area;

·        Improved connectivity through the site to Ballylesson Road and adjacent woodland; and

·        S76 Planning Agreement to ensure delivery of enabling development.

He provided the Committee with the Strategic Planning Policy Statement definition of enabling development and outlined its benefits and financial argument, with regard to the proposal.

He reported that no statutory or non-statutory consultees had offered any objection to the application, except for NI Water, which had objected on the grounds of a lack of wastewater capacity.  He added that 17 third party representations had been received, that included one letter of support and he outlined the issues which had been raised and addressed within the officer’s report.

He stated that the principal of enabling development was considered, on balance, to be acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. C. Shanks, Clyde Shanks Ltd., speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr. M. Doherty, Naylor Devlin, and Mr. B. McKervey, Historic Environment Division, DfC, to the meeting.

Mr. Shanks explained that he had worked closely with the Planning officers and commended the comprehensive case officer report which balanced and weighed all material planning considerations and recommended approval of the application.

He stated that the application would deliver significant planning gain and outlined the following key considerations to the Committee:

·        The new build development would generate vital funds that were essential to enable the restoration of the three remaining listed pavilions on site secured on a phased basis through a section 76 agreement;

·        The application would enhance open space provision for all residents;

·        Delivery of affordable housing units for active elderly at a level of provision (15%) that was accepted and supported by NIHE and endorsed through the viability report assessment by the Council’s independent consultant;

·        Enhanced connectivity for all residents through Phase 5 to the Ballylesson Road and through to the woodland to the north;

·        Enhancement of the existing mature landscaped boundaries (with fifty-six new trees to be planted) that would reinforce the site’s distinction with the open countryside beyond it;

·        Incorporation of green travel measures, that would include travel cards and other incentivised measures secured through section 76; and

·        The facilitation of an orderly and logical completion of development within the wider site whilst safeguarding the future of its significant and important heritage assets.

He concluded by stating that he commended the Planning officers’ recommendation to the Committee.

In response to comments from several Members, Mr. McKervey clarified that the Historic Environment Division did not have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and outline the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of development;

·        Demolition;

·        Impact of the new buildings on the character of the Area of Townscape Character;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Built heritage;

·        Climate change;

·        Health impacts;

·        Access and parking;

·        Natural heritage;

·        Drainage and Waste-Water Infrastructure;

·        Noise, odour and other environmental impacts;

·        Trees and landscaping; and

·        Employability and Skills.

He reported that the application had raised concern with regard to recommend condition two which required the buildings to meet BREEAM Excellent, or comparable standards, as required by Policy DES2 on the basis that the proposal was targeted for BREEAM Excellent, rather than being an outright commitment and that the condition would require evidence of BREEAM Excellent rating prior to occupation and that certification could take a significant time, based on final construction evidence.  He stated that officers were advising that condition two could either be removed or amended, having regard to the wider considerable benefits of the scheme.

            The Planning Manager explained that he applicant had also pointed out that the proposal did not incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and had therefore requested that reference to the requirement for SuDS be removed from condition nine.  He advised that officers were of the opinion that there would be limited opportunity for SuDS to be incorporated into the scheme and, therefore, having regard to the wider benefits of the proposal, the omission of SuDS was considered acceptable.

            He concluded by stating that it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. H. Harrison, Juno Planning, Mr. C. Maguire, QUB, and Mr. S. Gallagher, Todd Architects, to the meeting.

            Mr. Maguire explained that the iREACH project was being delivered as part of the Belfast Regions City Deal and would be a major development for the Health Research sector in Northern Ireland, Queen’s University and all of the key stakeholders and partners, that included Belfast City Council.

            He stated that the project would create a joined-up pathway for research organisations, health services and research networks while providing state of the art, unified clinical trial and research space and bring together private and public sector research expertise.

            He stated that, in collaboration with the integrated consultant team and the main contractor, the project would deliver social value opportunities with tangible benefits to the local community and create a number of economic benefits.

            Mr. Gallagher explained that the project consisted of a park of buildings, positioned on either side of the Lisburn Road, designed to establish a coherent relationship with each other and to address the current lack of urban definition, that would provide continuity of the streetscape established by the nearby period and listed buildings.

            He stated that the aim had been to create appropriately scaled and legible built form, enhanced by soft landscaping to provide defensible space at the buildings; interface with the footway, together with a generous south facing public plaza to one side of the road.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

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

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

·        Principle of development;

·        Built heritage;

·        Climate change;

·        Natural heritage and landscape;

·        Access;

·        Drainage and Waste-Water Infrastructure; and

·        Noise, odour and other environmental impacts.

She reported that consultees had been satisfied, subject to conditions and no representations had been received.

She stated that it was recommended that the application be 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 issues that might arise provided that they were not substantive.

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

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained that, following the publication of the Committee report, Shared Environmental Services (SES) had returned a consultation response which advised that the project would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

            She reported that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered, on balance, acceptable and it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

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 issues that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

(The City Solicitor, having declared an interest in the application, left the meeting whilst the item was under consideration.)

The Planning Manager outlined the application and highlighted the following items for consideration, to the Committee:

·        Principle of development and use;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Impact on the listed building; and

·        Provision of parking and access.

He reported that the application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press, and that no third-party representations had been received.

He added that DfI Roads, Environmental Health and Historic Environment Division (HED) had all been consulted and had offered no objections to the proposal.

            He stated that, having regard to the policy context and other material considerations, it was recommended that the application be 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 issues that might arise provided that they were not substantive.

(The City Solicitor returned to the meeting.)

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and reported that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable, and it was recommended that planning permission was 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 to deal with any other issues that might arise provided that they were not substantive.

            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 Committee meeting during discussion on the following items as, due to their nature, 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 Director of Planning and Building Control outlined the Quarter 3 financial position for the Planning Committee.

            The Committee noted the report.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control provided an overview of the submissions which had been received in response to the ‘Call for Sites’ (CfS) exercise undertaken between December, 2023 and March, 2024.

            The Committee noted the content of the report that included the broad range of submissions which had been received in response to the ‘Call for Sites’ exercise and the next steps in relation to those submissions as part of the evidence base for the preparation of the Local Policies Plan (LPP).

            The Committee agreed to recommend that presentations on LPP would be delivered to future meetings of the Area Working Groups.

            Councillor Groogan requested that the Committee intervene in the Public Local Inquiry for the Dalradian Gold application as there was a direct hydrological link to Lough Neagh from the Sperrin mountains which supplied Belfast’s drinking water.

            The Committee agreed to delegate authority to the City Solicitor to write to the Public Local Inquiry for the Dalradian Gold application, to enquire as to whether the Council could make submissions, given that the pre-inquiry submission deadline had lapsed and that a report would be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee on the matter.