Agenda and minutes

            Apologies for inability to attend were reported for Alderman Lawlor and Councillors Magee and McCann.

            The minutes of the meeting of 14th May, 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 3rd June, 2024, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor McAteer declared an interest in relation to item 6b on the agenda, under the heading - Notice of Opinion issued by the Department for Infrastructure: LA04/2021/1317/F and LA04/2021/1318/DCA - Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two new dwellings and associated site works. - 450 and 448 Lisburn Road, in that she had engaged with constituents who had objected to the application.

            The Committee noted the site visits which had taken place on 21st May, 2024.

            The Committee agreed to undertake the pre-emptive site visit.

            The Committee agreed to undertake the pre-emptive site visit.

The Committee agreed to undertake the pre-emptive site visit.

The Committee noted the notifications regarding accessible parking bays at the following locations:

·        14 St James Road;

·        27 Innisfayle Gardens;

·        36 Snugville Street;

·        81 Cambrai Street;

·        27 and 28 Carncaver Road;

·        13 Rossnareen Avenue;

·        123 Joanmount Gardens;

·        10 Andersonstown Park South; and

·        4 Knocknagoney Road.

            The Committee noted the appeals decisions.

            The Committee noted the planning decisions issued in April, 2024.

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with a summary of the undernoted report:

“1.0      Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

            To provide an update in relation to delays issuing some Committee decisions and to update the Committee on new Section 76 planning agreement processes.

2.0       Recommendation

            The Committee is asked to:

a)     note the contents of this report; and

b)     agree the proposed reporting method for applications which have been determined by Committee but not yet issued.

3.0       Main Report

            Background

3.1       At its February 2024 meeting, the Committee requested further information in relation to the monthly report it receives on planning application decisions issued by the Council. Following the Committee’s request, and for ease of identification, the monthly report now includes a colour coded system, highlighting approvals in green and refusals in red.

3.2       In addition, following clarification of the original request, officers have produced a summary table of all decisions made by the Committee on planning applications that have been determined by Committee but have yet to be issued. The summary table is provided at Appendix 1.

3.3       Officers propose to report an updated summary table to the Committee at future meetings as part of the monthly report on decisions issued.

            Assessment

3.4       The summary table shows that there are 29 applications the Committee has resolved to approve which have not yet issued. The oldest Committee decision dates back to the February 2022 and most recent to the April 2024 Committee.

3.5       The summary table specifies the reason why each decision has not yet issued. The reasons are broken down as follows:

·        24 applications (83%) awaiting completion of a Section 76 planning agreement;

·        3 applications (10%) notified to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI);

·        2 applications (7%) awaiting further consultation responses.

3.6       Analysis of all decisions made on applications for Major development in 2023/24 shows that 13 (46%) of the 28 decisions made by the Committee were subject to post-Committee delays of 10-weeks or more before the decisions were issued. Of those 13 decisions, 9 (69%) of the 13 decisions were delayed due to negotiations post Committee in relation to the terms of the Section 76 planning agreements.

3.7       As set out above, some of the delays relate to procedural or technical matters which had to be resolved such as outstanding consultation responses, finalising conditions and other administrative delays. Recognising that the majority of delays in issuing decisions has been the finalisation of planning agreements, officers have been working on how to streamline this process to ensure decision notices are issued as soon as possible after Committee.

            New Section 76 planning agreement process

3.8       Historically, focused negotiations on the detail of planning agreements have tended to take place once an application is scheduled to be presented to Committee. This inevitably leads to delays post Committee whilst the detail of the agreement is worked through with solicitors who have sometimes only been instructed post Committee. Officers are proposing a new streamlined process to frontload this work as much  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

            The Planning Manager outlined the following report to the Committee:

“1.0      Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       To report on the Department for Infrastructure’s Notice of Opinion in respect of planning applications LA04/2021/1317/F and LA04/2021/1318/DCA. These applications were approved by the Planning Committee at its 29th June 2023 meeting and subsequently called-in by the Department for Infrastructure (DfI).

1.2       DfI has issued a Notice of Opinion to the Council of its intention to refuse planning permission and Conservation Area Consent. The letter states that DfI must receive any request in writing for an opportunity to appear before and be heard by the Planning Appeals Commission, or a person appointed by DfI, for the purposes of a hearing within 8 weeks of the date of the letter (i.e. by 15th July 2024).

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       It is recommended that the Council responds to the Notice of Opinion, requesting opportunity to appear before and be heard by the Planning Appeals Commission, or a person appointed by DfI, for the purposes of a hearing.

2.2       This would provide opportunity for the Council to present its case that planning permission and Conservation Area Consent should be granted, contrary to the Department’s opinion that the applications should be refused.

2.3       The Committee is also asked to consider whether it wishes to nominate an Elected Member (or Elected Members) to appear at the hearing alongside officers in support of the Council’s case.

3.0       Main Report

            Background

3.1       At its 29th June 2024 meeting, the Committee resolved to approve the following applications:

·        LA04/2021/1317/F – Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two new dwellings and associated site works. 450 and 448 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7GX (application for ‘planning permission’).

·        LA04/2021/1318/DCA – Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two new dwellings and associated site works. 450 and 448 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7GX (application for ‘Conservation Area Consent’ for demolition).

3.2       A copy of the Committee report is provided at Appendix 2 and minutes at Appendix 3.

3.3       Section 89(1) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to notify DfI where it intends to grant Conservation Area Consent. Following ratification of the Committee’s decision, on 14th September 2023, the Council duly notified the Conservation Area Consent application (LA04/2021/1318/DCA) to the Department.

3.4       On 11th December 2023, DfI issued a letter to the Council, ‘calling in’ both the Conservation Area Consent application and application for full planning permission (LA04/2021/1317/F) for its determination. The Department’s reasoning for calling in the applications was stated as follows:

            ‘…in view of the proposed development’s potential conflict with the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) 2015, the Local Development Plan for the area (the Belfast Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy 2035), particularly in relation to heritage matters, and the potential for the proposed development to impact on the implementation of the plan-led system. It is therefore considered to be an exceptional case and that the regional and sub-regional issues raised would benefit from further scrutiny by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

            The Planning Manager explained that it was a recommendation of both the NI Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee reports of the NI planning system, that planning committees regularly review a sample of their previously determined applications.

            He suggested that the Committee visit a small selection of sites across the city that it had approved and that would cover a range of different development types, such as residential, affordable housing, purpose built managed student accommodation and commercial. 

            The Committee agreed to undertake an annual review of a sample of implemented schemes that it had granted planning permission for.

            The Acting Development Planning and Policy Manager provided the Committee with an update on the preparation of the Stage 7 Year 1 (2024) Monitoring Report of the Plan Strategy.

            He explained that there were seven stages to Equality Impact Assessments and that the monitoring stage represented the final stage in the process.  He stated that the process had not identified any negative impacts on any Section 75 group and that the EQIA had concluded that all nine Section 75 groups would benefit from the policies through the provision of a broader mix of housing, more jobs, access to green infrastructure, walking and cycling routes and improved access to services and facilities.

            He reported that, in line with Stage 7 of the Equality Commission Guidance, monitoring of the policies for adverse impacts was required over a two-year period and that ongoing monitoring would continue to determine whether there was any effect over a longer period of time.  He added that a Stage 7 Year 2 report would be required in May, 2025.

            The Committee noted the update.

            The Acting Development Planning and Policy Manager explained that the recent legal challenge the Council had taken against the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) in respect of its decision to overturn the Council’s refusal of planning permission in August, 2022 for two retrospective change of use applications for short term let accommodations at Citygate on Sussex Place.

            He stated that the PAC’s decision was issued in October, 2023 and that on 11th June, 2024, Mr. Justice Humphries held that the PAC had misinterpreted policy in allowing a retrospective change of use and ordered that the applications must be redetermined.

            He pointed out that the case highlighted the Plan Strategy’s assertion that using permanent homes or apartments for short term holiday accommodation was a potential risk on a sustainable supply of housing stock across the city.

            The Committee noted the update.

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

·        Principle of the change of use;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area;

·        Impact on amenity; and

·        Proliferation of Amusement Arcades.

            She reported that an additional objection had been received from Mr. E. Poots MLA which stated that the proposal was inappropriate in principle, that the use was incompatible to neighbouring property, First Church and that the proposal harmed the image and profile of Belfast city centre.

            She explained that the issue of the impact of the proposal would have on the image of Belfast city centre had been addressed in the report and assessed in light of the relevant LDP policy and the impact that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area.  She added that the issue of the cumulative build-up of amusement arcades in the city centre had also been addressed in the report and that the proposal would result in four amusement arcades within a five-minute walk or 200 metre radius, and that it had not been considered a proliferation, given the distance from the application site.

            The Principal Planning Officer explained that the potential impact the proposal would have on neighbouring properties, that included First Church had also been addressed in the report and that, in terms of concerns raised with regard to mental health and gambling addition, the proposal could only be assessed against relevant planning policies.

            She reported that the proposal complied with the LDP Plan Strategy and that it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. D. Thompson, MBA Planning, to the meeting who was speaking in objection to the application, on behalf of First Church.

            Ms. Thompson explained that the Council’s Amusement Policy clearly set out that amusement arcades were not acceptable in the prime retail core and that approval of the proposal would cause a cluster of amusement arcades within a small area.

            She stated that the proposal would present a bad neighbour to First Church, that was much more than a place of worship, and that it was tourist and cultural hub for the city centre which played an active role it its community and religious life.

            She explained that the church was only 22 metres from the proposal site and that the church disagreed with the assertion that it would have no significant impact as gambling activities would jar with the religious, spiritual, cultural and tourism activities that were conducted within the church and associated grounds.

            She stated that amusement arcades raised unique planning issues and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and explained that Building Control did not consider arcades compatible with retailing and regenerations for the following reasons:

·        They had a narrow appeal and so low footfall;

·        It was highly questionable whether they add vitality to an area;

·        they did not provide active street frontage at ground level because their interior was screened; and

·        they did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application.  She explained that the main issue for consideration was the principle of development and if the proposal met the policy requirements for new/replacement dwellings in the countryside.

            She reported that the existing building had been designed and built for agricultural purposes and that, whilst an individual may have resided in the building, it was not sufficient to meet the policy test for replacement.

            She stated that, having regard to DC2 and DC3 of the Local Develop Plan – Plan Strategy, it was recommended that the application be refused as the presumption was against new housing in the countryside and an exemption had not been demonstrated.  She added that the building to be replaced did not exhibit the essential characteristics of a dwelling house and was not eligible for replacement.

            Accordingly, the Chairperson put the officers’ recommendation to the Committee and on a vote by show of hands, nine Members voted for the recommendation and seven against, therefore the Committee refused the application and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the reasons for refusal.

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and explained that the key issues for consideration were the impact on amenity, setting of listed buildings and public safety.

            She informed the Committee that a sign had first been approved on the building in 1994 and again in 1998 and had been removed in 2009 and a further temporary consent had been granted for the existing LED digital sign in 2015.  She explained that the temporary time condition attached to the 2015 approval was to allow reassessment of the long-term impact of the signage at the location, however the temporary condition had been the subject of a planning appeal which was allowed and permanent consent granted.

            She reported that objections had been received from DfC Historic Environment Division and DfC Roads on grounds of adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and road safety.

            She stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, it was recommended that the application would be refused.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Fairfowl, the applicant, and Mr. R. Walker to the meeting.

            Mr. Fairfowl explained that he was content that his evidence supported the proposal and gave a strong rebuttal for the refusal reasons stated in the report.

            He stated that, with regards to amenity, the proposal was suited well to the predominantly commercial area which was a main transport corridor where signage could be integrated effectively into the architecture.  He pointed out that the proposal was situated near a grade B2 listed building but that the area could not be classed as sensitive or within a conservation area.

            He contested the officers’ report, stating that the proposed display, albeit wider, would not sit any higher above the parapet than the existing display, which was not centred on the building.  He added that the size of the display had been reduced by 19% in order to be less prominent.

            Mr. Fairfowl stated that, within his Heritage Impact Assessment, his view was that the overall contribution of the B2 listed building and its setting had already been severely compromised by a lack of investment in the surrounding area and diminished the architectural and historic interest to the wider community.

            He stated that the proposal would entice local and international investment in the area and referred to a proposal which had been granted on a temporary basis for Arthur Square, which was located in a conservation area.

            He asserted that public safety was paramount and that data suggested that, with messaging and brightness controls, digital displays could be used safely, despite size, and would not cause an increase in road incidents, as demonstrated in his road safety impact assessment.

            He explained that the proposal sat well above any relevant traffic signals and in no way back framed or obscured the traffic signals or signs.  He stated that DfI’s level of risk for the proposal was too high and did not evaluate the growing evidence.

            Mr. Walker stated that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

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

·        Principle of the proposed development;

·        Acceptability of the design of the new pavilion and ancillary development;

·        Impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Dundonald House;

·        Impact on trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order;

·        Impact on natural heritage;

·        Traffic Impact/parking;

·        Environmental protection;

·        Drainage, flood risk and climate change;

·        Employability and Skills; and

·        Pre-Application Community Consultation.

            She stated that, following the submission of further information, DAERA NIEA Water Management Unit, Regulation Unit and Natural Environment Division had no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and that Special Environmental Services (SES) had carried out an appropriate assessment on behalf of the Council and 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 subject to mitigation measures which were recommended as conditions.

            She pointed out that the proposal would result in substantial loss of trees across the site and the Council’s Tree Officer had stated that they were unable to support the application and advised that the removal of large groups of existing trees within the site would be detrimental and impact the existing amenity, wildlife, habitat, and impact visual character within the site which the trees currently provided.

            She reported that five representations had been received which raised concerns regarding a lack of parking and the impact on nearby residential streets, amenity impacts such as noise, floodlighting and trees and wildlife.  She informed the Committee that DfI Roads had considered the proposal and objections, and raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions.

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

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. K. Devlin and Mr. G. Kelly, NICSSA, to the meeting.  In response to a question from a Member with regard to ash dieback and the preservation of trees, Mr. Kelly explained that trees had been planted within the estate for the past 30 years, many of which were planted along the site border with the Newtownards Road, to provide coverage, reduce sound and visual activity and had also brought in conservation volunteers to plant other trees on the site.

            He stated that more trees were being planted than being removed and that NICSSA had a long history of preserving trees.  Mr. Devlin explained that of the 404 trees that were being removed, 23% were early mature trees.  He added that, from a maintenance perspective, the proposal was being used as an opportunity to maintain and protect the site and would take all necessary precautions to reduce tree loss on the site.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding car parking during large events, Mr. Kelly advised the Committee that parking for such events would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application for the Committee and explained that the site was within the development limit and that the site had been the subject of previous planning permissions for residential development which had expired.

            She pointed out that the proposal would help regenerate the area and utilise a site that had been vacant for approximately 20 years.  She stated that NIHE was supportive of the social housing element and that, on balance, the overall design of the proposal was not considered to be out of keeping with the residential character of the area.

            She reported that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission would be granted, 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.

            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 matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Committee deferred consideration of the application in order that a site visit could be undertaken.

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

·       The principle of development;

·       The impact on the character and appearance of the draft Area of Townscape Character;

·       The impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings;

·       Impact on amenity and adjacent uses; and

·       Highway safety.

            He explained that DfC Historic Environment Division had raised concern about the impact of the proposal on both nearby Listed terraces and the Council’s conservation advice had highlighted concerns with regard to the location and design of the extension.

            The Planning Manager pointed out that the proposal was considered acceptable as it was light weight and transparent in design, located at the termination of a terrace, in an area of changing character due to the iReach development proposal and because of its importance to the restaurant business.

            He reported that it was recommended that the application would be approved for a temporary period of three years, with conditions.

            The Committee granted temporary planning permission for a period of three years, 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 might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a summary of the report and explained that the key issues for consideration were the principle of development at the location and the impact on residential amenity.

            She reported that there had been no objections from consultees and that Environmental Health were content in principle, with a re-consultation on fence details outstanding.

            She stated that, having regard to the development plan, relevant planning polices and other material considerations, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable and recommended that the proposal be approved.

            The Committee approved the application, 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 arise from the outstanding consultation response from Environmental Health. 

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and explained that the proposal was considered to be compliant with the SPPS, Polices BH1 and BH2 of the Belfast Local Development Plan Strategy 20235 and Section 91(2) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and would have minimal impact on the existing structure.

            The Committee granted 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 arise, provided that they were not substantive.

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

·        The principle of an apart-hotel at this location;

·        Scale, massing and design;

·        Impact on built heritage;

·        Traffic and road safety;

·        Human health/environmental considerations;

·        Flooding and drainage;

·        Economic considerations; and

·        Environment and community.

            She stated 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.

            In response to a query from a Member, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that a travel plan, prepared in accordance with LDP policy TRAN4 had been submitted.

            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 might arise, provided they were not substantive.