Agenda and minutes

            Apologies were reported on behalf of Alderman Ruth Patterson and Councillors Armitage, Bunting and McDonough-Brown.

            The minutes of the meetings of 29th June, 30th July and 18th August 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 September, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Regarding agenda item Z/2014/0919/F, that is, the proposed extension to 11 Rosetta Park, Councillor Mullan indicated that she had made representations to the former Town Planning Committee on behalf of the applicant.

            The Committee noted a list of decisions which had been issued under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation between 7th August and 3rd September.

            The Committee was advised that agenda item Z/2014/1032/O, that is, proposed student accommodation at Wellwood Street/Glenalpin Street/Norwood Street, had, at the request of the applicant, been withdrawn. In addition, it was reported that agenda item Y/2014/0182/F, that is, proposed office development within an existing PSNI station in Ladas Drive, had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Noted.

The Committee was advised that the Council was proposing to initiate a public consultation exercise to ascertain the level of support for developing draft supplementary planning guidance within the King’s Road, Cyprus Avenue and the Knockdene conservation areas. It was explained that this measure would seek to protect architectural features and buildings of historic interest. In addition, given their distinct character and appearance, it was considered desirable to enhance existing buildings in the area. It was reported that the Council had a statutory duty to preserve conservation areas and, if appropriate, issue directives which would limit development rights to protect distinct and unique architectural features.

The Committee authorised officers to develop draft supplementary planning guidance for the three conservation areas referred to within the report and for the undertaking of a public consultation exercise in this regard.

            The Committee considered two applications, the first of which sought permission to demolish an existing two storey detached house at the above address, to enable the construction of a new two storey house and garage. The case officer reported that the proposals were both considered acceptable within existing planning policies.

            The Committee received representations from Mr. T. Howie, an objector to the proposal who outlined his concern in that the proposal, if permitted, would, given its size and mass, impact adversely upon his property which was adjacent to the site. In addition, the Committee received representations from Mr. M. Gordon and Mr. S. McLarnon on behalf of the applicant.

            The Committee granted approval to both applications, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the report and to the following additional conditions, which had been outlined at the meeting by the case officer: 

·        the obscuring of first floor windows facing number 2 Shrewsbury Park;

·        the removal of Permitted Development rights for extensions.

            (Councillors Mullan withdrew from the table and took no part in the discussion or decision-making process for this item.)

            The Committee considered an application for the erection of a two storey extension and detached single storey garage to the rear of 11 Rosetta Park, in respect of which an opinion to approve had been submitted to the Committee.

            The case officer indicated that, if permitted, an additional planning condition, which related to the obscuring of the window facing number 13 Rosetta Park, would be imposed. In addition, permission would be granted subject to clarity being received regarding the height and extent of the proposed wall and railings to be erected to the front of the property.

            The Committee received Mrs. K. Murphy, an objector to the proposal, who outlined her concern that, if permitted, the extension would affect adversely her property due to its proposed size and scale.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the report and the additional conditions as outlined by the case officer at the meeting:

·        the obscuring of first floor windows facing number 13 Rosetta Park; and

·        the provision of details in respect of the wall and railings to be erected

at the front boundary.

      (Alderman Lydia Patterson, who had not been in attendance at the meeting on 18th August when the item had been deferred, took no part in the discussion or decision-making process in respect of this application.)

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 18th August, it had deferred consideration of the above-mentioned application to enable clarification to be provided on issues which had been raised within the associated report.

            The case officer explained that, subsequent to the Committee’s meeting in August, the applicant had submitted a report which had addressed issues which related to the potential impact of the development on listed buildings in the area.  He pointed out that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) had raised objections due to the development’s impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings. However, he reported that planning officers had considered those objections, but had deemed that the proposal was still acceptable.

            The Town Solicitor indicated that, should the Committee agree to adopt the recommendation and approve the application, it would, given that such a decision would be contrary to the views expressed by the NIEA, be necessary to notify the Department of the Environment.

            The Committee received the applicant, Mr. N. Barnett, together with his legal representative, Mr. A. Ryan, who spoke in favour of the development.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hutchinson,

            Seconded by Councillor Johnston,

      That the Committee agrees to reject the recommendation to approve the application on the grounds that the proposal, if permitted, would represent an over-development of the site, would, given its size, scale and massing, overlook and over-shadow local houses, would result in a loss of privacy for surrounding residents and detract from the existing character and amenity of the area.

            On a vote by a show of hands, four Members voted for the proposal and five against and it was declared lost.

            Accordingly, the recommendation to approve the application was put to the Committee when five Members voted in favour and four against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee considered an application for the erection of new changing facilities, a 3G MUGA and grass pitch, together with floodlighting, which would include a woodland walkway, a play area, car parking and the creation of a new vehicular access from St. Mary’s Gardens. The case officer reported that the application had complied with all of the relevant planning considerations and an opinion to approve was being presented to the Committee. 

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered the application for a commemorative candle at Botanic Gardens which had been presented for decision since the Council was the applicant.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered the proposal for signage and improvements at Castlereagh Street which had been presented for decision since the Council was the applicant.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered the proposal for signage and improvements at Castlereagh Road which had been presented since the Council was the applicant.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered the proposal for signage and improvements at Lisburn Roadwhich had been presented since the Council was the applicant.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered the proposal for a MUGA facility at Annadale Embankment which had been presented for decision since the Council was the applicant.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered an application for the change of use of an existing listed building from office accommodation to a single dwelling.  The case officer outlined the principal considerations which had been deemed pertinent in the application.

            The Committee was informed that three objections had been received in respect of the proposal, none of which related directly to the proposed change of use.  The case officer indicated that the proposal was considered acceptable and that an opinion to approve was being presented to the Committee.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of an established retail site to provide for an extended food store.  The proposal, if permitted, would require the demolition of an existing shop, together with an adjacent vacant retail unit, to enable the development of a single shop with enhanced access arrangements. 

            The case officer reported that the proposal was acceptable and, accordingly, an opinion to approve the application was being presented to the Committee.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered the proposal for an extension to 24 Brae Hill Crescent which had been presented for decision pursuant to paragraph 3.92 of the Scheme of Delegation.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.

            The Committee considered the above-mentioned proposal which had been presented for decision since the Council was a part funder of the project under its Local Investment Fund.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions as outlined within the case officer’s report.