Agenda and minutes

            Apologies for inability to attend were reported from Councillors Hutchinson and McKeown.

            The minutes of the Special meetings of 21st and 28th July were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 10th August, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor Groogan declared an interest in the proposed pre-emptive site visit to Havelock House, in that she had previously made representation in respect of the application and had engaged with objectors and, as such, would not take part in the discussion or decision regarding the application.

            Councillor O’Hara declared an interest in LA04/2019/1540/F - Centralised Anaerobic Digestion (CAD) plant on lands to the northwest of existing Belfast City Council Waste Transfer Station, 2a Dargan Road, in that he was on the Board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and that the Belfast Harbour Commission was objecting to the application.  He advised that, as it was a Council appointment and as he did not have a pecuniary interest, he could fully participate in the discussion on the item.

            The Committee considered the undernoted motion which, in accordance with Standing Order 13(f), had been immediately referred to the Planning Committee by the Council at its meeting on 1st July:

“This Council:

1.     notes the valuable contribution that Belfast’s historic tiled street signs make to the character of the areas in which they are situated and laments the loss of so many of these signs over the years;

2.     further notes that a number of freestanding tiled street signs in Belfast have been listed and thereby protected from destruction or removal, but that most such signs have no protection at all;

3.     requests its officers :-

·         to take all necessary steps to effect the repair and restoration of the freestanding tiled street signs identified below* and to take steps to identify other such signs and to take all necessary steps to effect the repair and restoration of those signs; and

·         to request that the Department for Communities adds those signs which are of particular quality and merit to the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.

4.     The street signs referred to above are situated at the junctions of :

(a)     Kensington Road/Knock Road.

(b)     Cherryvalley Park/Kensington Road.

(c)     Kingsden Park/Knock Road.

(d)     Knockland Park/Barnett’s Road.

(e)     Summerhill Parade/Barnett’s Road.

(f)      Belmont Road/Massey Avenue [the unlisted sign].

(g)     Wandsworth Road/Belmont Road [2 signs].

(h)     Belmont Church Road/Sydenham Avenue.

(i)      Belmont Church Road/Belmont Road [the unlisted sign].

(j)      Eastleigh Drive/Kincora Avenue.

(k)     Clonlee Drive/Upper Newtownards Road.

(l)      Beersbridge Road/Upper Newtownards Road.”

            The Committee agreed that a report be submitted to a future meeting providing further information on the issues raised.

            It was noted that the Committee had undertaken site visits on 12th August in respect of the following three planning applications:

·         LA04/2018/2876/F - Lands opposite 13, 15, 17 and 32 Somerdale Park;

·         LA04/2020/0757/F - Upgrade of existing gravel pitch to synthetic sand dressed hockey pitch, with floodlighting, fencing, acoustic barrier, storage container at West Pitch, Downey House, Pirrie Park Gardens; and

·         LA04/2018/1411/F - Upgrade of existing gravel pitch to synthetic sand dressed hockey pitch, with floodlighting, fencing, acoustic barrier, storage container at East Pitch Downey House, Pirrie Park Gardens.

LA04/2020/0067/F: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 270 no. apartment building comprising 8, 5 and 3 storey elements, provision of hard and soft landscaping including communal courtyard gardens, public realm, provision of 40 no. car parking spaces, cycle parking, substation and associated works. (Further information and amended plans received) at Havelock House, Ormeau Road, Belfast.

            In response to a suggestion from the Planning Manager (Development Management) relating to a number of major planning applications which were due to be considered by the Committee over the next few months, the Committee agreed to undertake a pre-emptive site visit to:

·         LA04/2020/0067/F: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 270 no. apartment building comprising 8, 5 and 3 storey elements, provision of hard and soft landscaping including communal courtyard gardens, public realm, provision of 40 no. car parking spaces, cycle parking, substation and associated works. (Further information and amended plans received) at Havelock House, Ormeau Road, Belfast.

            The Committee noted a list of decisions which had been taken under the delegated authority of the Director of Planning and Building Control, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 15th July and 7th August.

            The Committee noted the receipt of correspondence in respect of a number of planning appeals which had been submitted to the Planning Appeals Commission, together with the outcomes of a range of hearings which had been considered by the Commission.

            The Committee noted correspondence which had been received from the Department for Infrastructure, advising of its intention to provide an accessible/disabled parking bay at 26 Fortwilliam Crescent.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       To bring to the Committee’s attention the outcomes of cross-departmental discussions regarding graffiti and defacing of street furniture. A Motion was presented to the Council at its meeting on 4th February, and discussed at Planning Committee on 19th February 2019.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is requested to:

·         Note the outcomes of cross-departmental discussions and the intention to move forward with the public art project.

3.0       Main report

                        Background

3.1       The motion regarding street furniture, which was proposed by Councillor Boyle, and seconded by Councillor Dudgeon, was presented to the Council at its meeting on 4 February 2019:

“This Council recognises that it is difficult to contact those responsible for the maintenance of street furniture, utility boxes, phone boxes and masts, post boxes, advertising facilities and any other structure that sits on or in the footpath or in a public place throughout the City.

The Council supports the need for people to be able to contact those responsible for the cleaning and maintaining of these structures. Accordingly, the Council will undertake a piece of work to identify whose ownership these are in and will encourage those responsible for maintaining and cleaning same to put their details on these structures and ensure their details remain on these structures so that they can be contacted when needed. Furthermore, the Council agrees that any future planning approvals for street furniture, boxes etc. as listed above, will include a condition requiring the contact details of those responsible for cleaning and maintaining and servicing them to be prominently displayed.”

3.2       In accordance with Standing Order 13(f), the Motion was referred without discussion to the Planning Committee.

3.3       Planning Committee meeting on 19th February 2019; The Director confirmed to the Committee that not all items of street furniture required planning permission and that the requirement to provide contact details was not a material planning consideration.  However, he explained to the Members that, where an application was in front of the Committee, it could add an informative on the consent requiring the owners of the equipment to include contact details on the piece of street furniture.  He outlined to the Committee that cross-departmental meetings were taking place to look at the issue of graffiti on street furniture.

3.4       In response to a Member’s question, he confirmed to the Committee that it could, by condition, require that owners maintained street furniture in good order, whereby the enforcement team could ensure that those conditions were upheld.

3.5       The Committee agreed that a report be submitted to a future meeting on the outcomes of any cross-departmental discussions relating to the issues of graffiti/defacing of street furniture.

3.6       Outcomes of any cross-departmental discussions relating to the issues of graffiti/defacing of street furniture

3.7       Under The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (NI) Order 1985 the Council’s City and Neighbourhood Services Department may remove or obliterate graffiti, placards and posters. In the case of graffiti if it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

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

·         LA04/2019/1598/F - Apart-Hotel (87no. bedrooms & 26no. serviced apartments), 14no. Business Studios and 10no. live/work studios with associated car parking and landscaping at Adelaide Business Centre, Apollo Road – as the applicant had withdrawn the application from the planning process; and

·         LA04/2019/1540/F - Centralised Anaerobic Digestion (CAD) plant on lands to the northwest of existing Belfast City Council Waste Transfer Station, 2a Dargan Road, due to recent correspondence which had been received from an objector which required further consideration by the officers.

            The Committee was advised that the application had previously been listed for consideration by the Committee on 16th June 2020, during the period of delegated authority in respect of Covid 19.  However, Members of the Committee had advised that they did not feel that they had been given sufficient time to consider the late items, which had been submitted on behalf of the applicant, in order to form a view at that time.  Consequently, consideration of the item was deferred.

            The Case officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application.  She explained that the key considerations in the assessment of the proposal were the principle of development and the impact on amenity.  The Members were advised that the site was located within a zoned Housing Action Area in accordance with the BUAP and within the proposed Lower Ormeau Area of Townscape Character in draft BMAP.

            As the application site fell within a designated HMO policy area, the Case officer explained that Policy HMO 1 applied and that within designated HMO Policy Areas, planning permission would only be granted where the number of HMO dwelling units did not, as a result, exceed 30% of all dwelling units within the Policy Area.  The Committee was advised that, out of 370 domestic properties within the Lower Ormeau Policy Area, 122 were HMOs, equating to 32.9%.

            She advised that the proposed development was therefore contrary to Policy HMO 1 of the Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) Subject Plan for the Belfast City Council Area 2015, in that the number of HMO dwelling units already exceeded 30% of all dwelling units within the Policy Area.

            The Committee was advised that the application had been neighbor notified and that no representations had been received.  However, the Case officer outlined that an objection had been received since the June Committee from Councillor Gormley.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack, whereby the applicant’s son had rebutted a number of points which had been raised in the objection, including that a Special Action Area had not yet been designated.  The Case officer provided the Members with the officers’ response to those issues, during which she confirmed that, as the Special Action Area had not yet been designated, it had not been afforded any weight in assessing the application.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Gormley to the meeting.  He advised the Committee that:

·         the proposal was contrary to Policy HMO1 of the HMO Subject Plan 2015;

·         the Council had proposed to designate the Holyland and Lower Ormeau Area (including Balfour Avenue) as a Special Action Area, within which the return of properties to family dwellings would be favoured and that allowing new HMO developments ran directly contrary to that intention;

·         in addition to HMOs, over 40% of houses in Balfour Avenue were privately rented and only25% were owner occupied/NIHE, which impacted the sense of community in the area; and

·         it posed a detrimental impact on parking and residential amenity.

            The Chairperson the welcomed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11a

            The Principal Planning officer presented the details of the application to the Committee. 

            She reminded the Committee that, at its meeting on 21st July, it had agreed to defer the application for a site visit to allow the Members to acquaint themselves with the location and the proposal at first hand.  She advised that the site visit had taken place on Wednesday, 12th August.

            The Members were advised of the key issues which were considered during the assessment of the proposed development, including the impact on open space, the layout, parking and access, impact on residential amenity, and height, scale and design.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that, under the adopted Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) 2001 the site was zoned for open space and recreation. The 2004 version of Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (dBMAP) had also designated the site as lands reserved for open space and recreation.  She explained that, at the public inquiry to draft BMAP 2004 the PAC had recommended that the site be re-designated as housing land, which the former Department of the Environment (DoE) carried through to the 2015 version of Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 which was unlawfully adopted and subsequently quashed.  The Committee was reminded that, therefore, there was a conflict between the statutory adopted BUAP 2001 and the draft BMAP 2015 version.

            She explained that significant weight was afforded to the adopted BUAP 2001 and its designation as open space and the draft BMAP 2004 version which also designated the site as existing open space. The 2015 version remained a material consideration however it did not carry greater weight than the existing adopted plan, the BUAP 2001, despite its vintage.

            The Committee was advised that, whilst a previous planning application had been granted in 1996 for a residential use at the location, it was a decision of the previous Authority, the DoE, which was a Central Government decision by which the Council was not bound and was also within a different policy context, pre the introduction of PPS 8 – Open Space and Recreation.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that the applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit a PPS 8 statement to address policy OS1 but it was not submitted, and the statement that had been submitted did not address the policy tests of OS 1 and focused on a reliance on the status of the draft BMAP 2015 version instead. She outlined that the applicant had failed to address the policy context and therefore the proposed land use for housing was considered unacceptable in principle.

            She advised the Committee that the proposed design, was acceptable but that the scheme resulted in overdevelopment, as the number of units created a layout dominated by parking, minimal or no front gardens, with rear gardens backing onto the front access laneway resulting in a safety and surveillance concern at a sensitive interface.  The Members were advised that the scheme was not reflective of the character of the area and failed to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11b

            The Principal Planning officer provided the principal aspects of the application to the Committee.  She pointed out that a related application, at the adjoining east pitch under reference LA04/2018/1411/F, was also under consideration at the meeting.

            The Committee noted that a site visit had taken place at the pitches on 12th August.

            The Principal Planning officer outlined that the main issues to be considered in the assessment of the proposal were:

·         the principle of development;

·         design, visual amenity and impact on character of locality;

·         landscaping / ecology / draft LLPA;

·         impact on residential amenity;

·         access, movement and parking; and

·         flooding / infrastructure capacity.

            She explained that the proposed hours of operation of the pitch were from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday, and 8.00 am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. There would be no use of the pitch on Sundays. The Members were advised that the applicant had confirmed that the pitch was for the primary use of the school only with the occasional use of the pitches for Easter and summer camps as per the existing arrangements with Pirrie Park.

            She explained that the proposal involved upgrade works to an existing hockey pitch, thus retaining its recreational use in accordance with Policy OS1 of PPS8 and paragraph 6.205 of the SPPS.

            The Committee was advised that 195 representations had been received, comprising of 71 objections from local residents, 119 letters of support from the general public and 5 letters of support from school staff. 

            The objections raised issues including that the applications should be a major development and that the applicant had sought to avoid the requirements of a major application, lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment statement, light spillage, access issues, noise, significant harm to the visual amenity of residents and wider area, traffic congestion, parking and highway safety issues, drainage/flooding and health and safety concerns.

            The representations of support cited that the current facilities were outdated, substandard and unsafe, the development would help the enhancement of girls’ sporting activities, physical and mental health benefits, there was adequate existing parking and access via Ardenlee Avenue, it would benefit children currently attending school, future generations and the local community, the proposed mitigation would limit harm to neighbours and it would provide a positive aesthetic effect on the surrounding area.

            The Committee was advised that DFI Roads, Rivers Agency, NI Water, DAERA, Environmental Health and the Landscaping Section had been consulted and had no objection to the proposal.

            The Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Items pack whereby six additional objections had been received.  The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee of the Planners’ response to the points raised and also clarified two minor errors within the report.  She explained that, immediately before the meeting, an additional objection had been received.  The Members were advised that it was in relation to a DfI Roads response which had been received by the Council earlier that day in respect of the two pitch applications.  She explained that the objector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11c

            (Councillor O’Hara left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            The Principal Planning officer provided the principal aspects of the application to the Committee.  She pointed out that this was the adjoining pitch to the previous application, LA04/2020/0757/F.

            The Committee noted that a site visit had taken place at the pitches on 12th August.

            The Principal Planning officer outlined that the main issues to be considered in the assessment of the proposal were:

·         the principle of development;

·         design, visual amenity and impact on character of locality;

·         landscaping / ecology / draft LLPA;

·         impact on residential amenity;

·         access, movement and parking; and

·         flooding / infrastructure capacity.

            She explained that the proposed hours of operation of the pitch were from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm, Monday to Friday, and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays. There would be no use of the pitch on Sundays. The Members were advised that the applicant had confirmed that the pitch was for the primary use of the school only with the occasional use of the pitches for Easter and summer camps as per the existing arrangements with Pirrie Park.

            As the proposal involved upgrade works to an existing hockey pitch, she explained that retaining its recreational use was in accordance with Policy OS1 of PPS8 and paragraph 6.205 of the SPPS.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that 238 representations had been received, comprising 118 objections from local residents, 51 of which were in objection to the original and 67 to the amended scheme.  She advised that 115 letters of support had been received from general public, with 5 letters of support from school staff.

            The objections cited that the applications should be a major development and that the applicant had sought to avoid the requirements of a major application, lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment statement, light spillage, noise, significant harm to the visual amenity of residents and wider area, traffic congestion, parking and highway safety issues, access issues, drainage/flooding and health and safety concerns.

            The representations of support cited that the current facilities were outdated, substandard and unsafe, the development would help the enhancement of girls’ sporting activities, physical and mental health benefits, there was adequate existing parking and access via Ardenlee Avenue, it would benefit children currently attending school, future generations and the local community, the proposed mitigation would limit harm to neighbours and it would provide a positive aesthetic effect on the surrounding area.

            The Committee was advised that DFI Roads, Rivers Agency, NI Water, DAERA, Environmental Health and the Landscaping Section had been consulted and had no objection to the proposal.

            The Members were advised of a number of late items and the officers response to the issues raised which were within the Late Items pack.  The Committee noted that Environmental Health had recommended a construction management condition.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. M. Graham, objector, to the meeting.  He advised the Committee that:

·         the process had been flawed in that he felt that the Council’s 2017 decision regarding the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11d

            The Chairperson reminded the Committee that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda by officers, due to correspondence which had been received from the applicant immediately prior to the meeting.

            The Committee agreed to undertake a site visit in order to acquaint itself with the location and the proposal at first hand.

            The Divisional Solicitor advised the Members that the two objectors had requested five minutes each to address the Committee on the issue, and had provided exceptional circumstances as to why they required the additional time.  The Committee agreed to grant the objectors five minutes each to address the Committee, and subsequently that the applicant/agent would be given ten minutes, at the meeting at which the application would be considered.

            The Committee noted that, as the application had not been presented, all Members’ present at the next meeting, would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            Moved by Councillor Groogan,

            Seconded by Councillor Collins,

      That the application be deferred to allow a representative from the Department for Infrastructure to attend, in order to answer questions surrounding the number of trips associated with the application and the trigger for providing mitigating roads infrastructure.

            On a vote, eight members voted for the proposal and three against and it was declared carried.

            The Committee noted that, as the application had not yet been presented, all Members’ present at the next meeting would be able to take part in the debate and vote on this item.

            The Case officer explained that advertisement consent was sought for a temporary mesh banner sign.

            She outlined that the key issues which were considered in the assessment of the proposal were the impact on local amenity, public safety and the setting of listed buildings.

            The Committee was advised that, whilst the sign was contrary to PPS17 Outdoor Advertisements, it was accepted that by granting consent for a period of one year was acceptable in the circumstances, given that the locality was going through a period of transition with the construction of the university campus and that future plans for the host building were also well advanced.

            She explained that the Belfast Telegraph Building was listed and that the Historic Environment Division had been consulted and had no objection to the proposal, subject to the temporary approval being for one year.

            The Members were advised that no representations had been received.

            A Member highlighted that the policy test had not been met and that she was concerned that if the Committee was to approve it, it would set a precedent.  She added that the Council had taken action previously against similar banners on listed buildings and that it should be leading the way and following policy.

            The officer’s recommendation, to approve the application for a temporary period of one year, was then put to a vote whereby ten Members voted for it and one against, and it was declared carried.

            The Committee was provided with the principal aspects of the application, for the re-siting of a James Connolly statue from 275-277 Falls Road to 374-376 Falls Road. The Case officer explained that the statue measured 3.75m in height with a plinth measuring 0.9m by 0.9m. She explained that the statue was proposed to be re-located to the front of the existing building, integrated within the existing planting.

            The Members were advised that the proposed site was located within white land in the BUAP and was designated within a proposed Area of Townscape Character within dBMAP, as well as on an arterial route.  The statue was to receive a new plinth of corten steel with backlit letters and the design was considered compatible within its new context in front of the Connolly Building.  She outlined that the proposal would not harm the proposed Area of Townscape Character.

            The Committee was advised that no representations had been received and that DFI Roads had offered no objection.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.

The Case officer provided the Members with the key aspects of the application which included include the demolition and removal of existing public toilets, landscaping works, new paving, and provision of street furniture, lighting, railings, tree/hedgerow and all associated site works for a temporary period of three years.

            She outlined the main issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposals, which included the principle of development at this location, the impact on visual amenity, the potential of contaminated land, the impact on the setting of a listed structure and on existing open space.

            The Committee was advised that HED, DFI Roads, Rivers Agency, NIEA, BCC Environmental Health, the Tree and Landscape Team and the City Regeneration and Development Team had been consulted in relation to the proposals and had offered no objections subject to conditions.

            The Case officer pointed out that one letter of representation had been received regarding measures to prevent graffiti and interference with the adjacent property at 5 Ravenhill Road.

            She advised the Committee that the application site lay within the development limits for Belfast and that the proposals complied with the Development Plan and relevant policy.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the conditions.