Agenda and minutes

            An apology for inability to attend was reported from the Chairperson, Councillor Carson.

            The minutes of the meeting of 15th February 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 March, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

No declarations of interest were recorded.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       To consider a motion in relation to Historic Belfast Street Signs, which the Standards and Business Committee, at its meeting on 22nd February, referred to this Committee.

1.0            Recommendations

1.1            The Committee is asked to

·        Consider the motion and to take such action thereon as may be determined.  

3.0       Main report

3.1       Key Issues

The Standards and Business Committee, at its meeting on 22nd February, considered a report providing details of the motions which had been received for consideration by the Council on 1st March.

3.2       In accordance with Standing Order 37(h), the following motion, which had been proposed by Councillor McKeown and seconded by Councillor de Faoite, was referred directly to the Planning Committee for consideration.

Historic Belfast Street Signs

“This Council recognises the important role that traditional black tile street signs play in the built heritage of Belfast and the aesthetic benefits they bring to the character of the city. However, it notes with concern the absence of robust protections to ensure their upkeep, which could put at direct threat this significant part of Belfast’s history.

The Council therefore agrees to undertake a review with the aim of identifying firm and practical recommendations for implementation in consideration of the following:

·             Creating a register of all historic street signs in Belfast including, where possible, details of their ownership;

·             Putting in place arrangements for the timely repair and upkeep of historic street signs, including those which are listed and in council ownership, and those that are not listed;

·             Establishing arrangements for the reinstatement of signs which would have originally been traditional black signs but have subsequently been replaced with generic street signs – this could be done when the generic sign needs replaced at the natural end of its lifespan or after damage. Reinstatements should use the traditional white font and black background and may include the use of other materials if appropriate and more practical;

·             Assessing whether steps should be undertaken to request the listing of all traditional Belfast street signs to provide them with legal protection, particularly those that are not in council ownership and may currently have to protection;

·             Putting in place requisite resources to enable the above to be rolled out and continued, including accessing government or third party funding if available to enable heritage and protection work to be undertaken; and

·             Any other relevant issues which arise during the course of this review.”

3.3       The Committee should note that a motion which incorporated some of the areas above had previously been referred to the Planning Committee:

http://www.internalminutes/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=167&MID=9745#AI56216.

3.4       A number of the street signs set out in the motion were subsequently listed:

http://www.internalminutes/documents/s90925/20210420HEDListingStreetSigns.pdf

3.5       Officers from Building Control, Planning and City Services are seeking to progress the work set out in paragraph 3 of the original motion and that the motion was referred to the Planning Committee to allow it to determine whether it wishes to incorporate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Committee noted that site visits had taken place in respect of the below applications on 3rd March, 2022:

• LA04/2021/2285/F - Apartment Development at 29 Parkside Gardens; and

• LA04/2021/1808/F - Residential development comprising of 14 dwellings, access from Lagmore View Lane and Lagmore Glen, completion of remaining areas of open space (including hard and soft landscaping), provision of parking bays, speed bumps and bollards to improve road safety along Lagmore View Road, and all associated site works on lands South and East of 148-163 Lagmore View Lane North and West of 37 81 82 and 112 Lagmore Glen and Lagmore View Road

LA04/2021/2856/O - Mixed use regeneration development comprising office (Class B1), residential apartments (including affordable), retail (Class A1), hotel, leisure (Class D2), public realm, active travel uses, cafes, bars and restaurants, and community uses (Class D1), on lands surrounding the new Belfast Transport Hub and over the Transport Hub car park, to the east and west of Durham St and south of Grosvenor Rd. on lands to east of West Link (A12) and south of Grosvenor Road; Lands at Grosvenor Road and intersection of Grosvenor Road and Durham Street; Lands to the east of Durham Street and north of Glengall Street; Lands at Glengall Street; Lands between Glengall Street and Hope Street including Europa Bus Station, Great Victoria Rail Station, surface car parks at St Andrew’s Square; Translink lands to west of Durham Street, south of BT Exchange building and north of Murray’s Tobacco Works

The Committee agreed to hold a Pre-Determination Hearing and Pre-emptive Site Visit in respect of the following application:

·        LA04/2021/2856/O - Mixed use regeneration development comprising office (Class B1), residential apartments (including affordable), retail (Class A1), hotel, leisure (Class D2), public realm, active travel uses, cafes, bars and restaurants, and community uses (Class D1), on lands surrounding the new Belfast Transport Hub and over the Transport Hub car park, to the east and west of Durham St and south of Grosvenor Rd. on lands to east of West Link (A12) and south of Grosvenor Road; Lands at Grosvenor Road and intersection of Grosvenor Road and Durham Street; Lands to the east of Durham Street and north of Glengall Street; Lands at Glengall Street; Lands between Glengall Street and Hope Street including Europa Bus Station, Great Victoria Rail Station, surface car parks at St Andrew’s Square; Translink lands to west of Durham Street, south of BT Exchange building and north of Murray’s Tobacco Works.

LA04/2020/1943/F and LA04/2020/1944/LBC - Residential conversion of the existing listed warehouses to form 57 (1 to 3 bed units, including 60% social and affordable to include a minimum of 20% social housing at 3-19 (Former Warehouse) Rydalmere Street.

The Committee agreed to hold a Pre-Determination Hearing in respect of the following application:

·        LA04/2020/1943/F and LA04/2020/1944/LBC - Residential conversion of the existing listed warehouses to form 57 (1 to 3 bed units, including 60% social and affordable to include a minimum of 20% social housing at 3-19 (Former Warehouse) Rydalmere Street.

            The Committee noted a list of decisions which had been taken under the delegated authority of the Strategic Director of Place and Economy, together with all other planning decisions which had been issued by the Planning Department between 8th February and 4th March 2022.

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 considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       To provide an overview of the Council’s Housing Land Availability Summary Report for the 2020/21 monitoring period.

The report presents the outcomes of annual housing land monitoring and provides a snapshot of the amount of land available for new residential development as of 1 April 2020. It will be supported by an online map portal showing the status of all existing housing monitor sites. The map portal will also spatially reflect key information contained within the tables of the report.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       The Committee is asked to note the outcomes of the annual Housing Monitor report for 2020/21 contained here and the intention to publish this summary document and accompanying online map portal on the Council’s website.

3.0       Main Report

            Background

3.1       Members are reminded that the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires the Council to make an annual report to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) outlining the extent to which the objectives set out in the Local Development Plan (LDP) are being achieved. As the Council are currently preparing the first new LDP for Belfast under this new legislation, the production of Annual Monitoring Reports has not yet commenced. Instead, annual Housing Land Availability Monitor reports (referred to as the ‘Housing Monitor’ reports) are being prepared by the Council until the new LDP is adopted.

3.2       Members will be aware that the draft Plan Strategy, the first formal stage of the Belfast LDP, was subject to Independent Examination between November 2020 and March 2021. Although the Council generally aim to publish the Housing Land Availability Summary Report for the previous monitoring period in the Autumn each year, the 2020/21 Report was prepared subsequent to the Independent Examination. The publication of the report was therefore delayed to avoid the introduction of new evidence in advance of the Independent Examination report being forwarded to the Council. The Council received the ‘Independent Examination Report of Belfast City Council’s Local Development Plan: Plan Strategy’ on 4th February 2022.

3.3       While the Housing Land Availability Summary Report for the 2020/21 monitoring period is being brought to Committee at this late stage, work has commenced on the Housing Land Availability Summary Report for the 2021/22 monitoring period which will be brought to Committee in late summer for publication in the Autumn 2022.

Housing Land Availability Reports

3.4       The primary purpose of the Housing Monitor is to inform the formulation of the Council’s new LDP. However, it will also help the Council identify where a shortfall in potential land supply might exist and can inform house-builders on the availability of land that may be suitable for housing.

3.5       The Housing Land Availability Summary Report presents the headline figures from a register of potential housing land maintained by the Council, based on current planning policy designations and planning permissions. This provides a snapshot of the amount of land available for new homes and capacity for future housing units as of 1st  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1       To make members aware of the on-going work in relation to the development of the first draft Employment Land Monitor (ELM) for Belfast. Members should note that additional work will continue in respect of the digital mapping within the district to gain a complete picture in relation to employment land across the city.

1.2       The council is required to develop and maintain the Monitor to support the delivery of the Local Development Plan and to inform future decision making. Once established it will support the monitoring of policy and the uptake of employment land as projected within Policy EC2 (employment land supply) of the draft Plan Strategy.

1.3       The proposed approach for the ELM reflects that established for the Housing Land Availability Report and will be supported by a similar online map portal.

2.0       Recommendation

2.1       The Committee is asked to note the proposed form and content of the draft Employment Land Monitor report for 2020/21 as set out here.

3.0       Main Report

            Background

3.1       The Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires the council to make an annual monitoring report to the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) in respect of the Local Development Plan (LDP) implementation. The work on the evidence base for the draft Plan Strategy has provided the foundation for the employment land monitoring that will be formalised alongside the work to deliver Local Policies Plan.

Employment Monitor Report

3.2       The primary purpose of the draft ELM is to inform decision making and the ongoing performance of policy in respect of land supply across the city. As an evolving information source, it will provide a mechanism to identify where imbalances in land supply may develop and can inform prospective investors or developers on the availability of land that may be suitable for employment uses across the city.

3.3       The draft ELM sets out the headline data from the register of potential employment land, based on current planning policy designations and planning permissions. This provides an assessment at a point in time (31st March 2021) for the amount of land available for employment purposes and capacity for future employment across the city.

3.4       This information is summarised within the report in relation to:

·        completed net employment gains over the period 2020/21;

·        remaining net supply (comprising extant consents and sites where development is on-going) at 31st March 2021; and

·        the potential additional supply in terms of vacant land suitable for employment use at 31st March 2021;

3.5       This ELM report will be supported by the online map portal showing the status of all existing employment monitor sites alongside the other spatial mapping for the LDP on the council’s website. For the 2020/21 monitoring year there was 2724m² of employment floorspace completed with the majority of this being office floorspace. At the 31 March 2021 there was approximately 101,000 m² of employment floorspace under construction and 509,000m² remaining by way of extant planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

            The information contained in the reports associated with the following 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 meeting during discussion of the items as, due to the nature of the item, 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 Planning Manager (Policy) provided the Members with a further update on the documentation which had been received from the DfI and the proposed work programme to address the requirements of the statutory Direction, including the potential process for the Council to formally adopt what would be the first draft Plan Strategy to be brought forward under the new system.

He provided the Committee with details in respect of the initial assessment of the Required Amendments (RAs) as well as the proposal in respect of the more significant changes to support the addition of a new strategic policy to the draft Plan Strategy.

After discussion, the Committee:

1.     noted the contents of the report;

2.     endorsed the proposed response to the requirement for a new strategic policy and modifications to the draft Policy HOU1 for consultation;

3.     agreed the proposal for an 8 week consultation as set out in the work programme;

4.     agreed to hold a Special meeting in respect of the issues raised and that, as it was a situation of extreme urgency, pursuant to Standing Order 14, that the minutes of the Special meeting be submitted to the Council meeting on 4th April 2022 for ratification so as to meet the timetable; and

5.     agreed to the delegated authority requested in paragraph 3.14 for officers to develop a revised LDP Timetable in consultation with DfI and the PAC.

The Planning Manager (Policy) advised the Committee that the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council (LCC) Local Development Plan (LDP) had progressed to the Independent Examination stage and that the Council had received an invitation from the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) to participate. The Committee was also asked to note that the Antrim & Newtownabbey Borough Council (A&NBC) LDP was also scheduled for Independent Examination in May.

He provided the Members with an update in respect of the proposed participation in the Independent Examination process for the LCCC draft Plan Strategy and outlined the basis for progression of a “Statement of Common Ground” with A&NBC.

The Committee:

·          noted the programme for the Independent Examination and the invitation to participate in respect of the session “Sprucefield Regional Shopping Centre”;

·          noted the proposed acceptance of the invitation to participate in respect of the Sprucefield sessions and also the intention to pursue a watching brief in relation to the other matters set out within the previous responses to the draft Plan Strategy; and

·          supported the proposal for the “Statement of Common Ground” to be progressed with A&NBC in respect of the ongoing development of the LDP documents. 

The Principal Planning officer provided the Members with an update on the preparation of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in advance of public consultation and sought approval for the final versions of the proposed Advertising and Signage and Transport documents.

He explained that the SPGs represented non-statutory planning guidance that supported, clarified and illustrated by example policies included in the current planning policy framework including regional policy. The Committee was advised that they were a material consideration in determining planning applications but did not in themselves contain policy over and above what was set out in the plan. They must be read in conjunction with the LDP and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) but, unlike the LDP, they were not subject to the same scrutiny in terms of the statutory process.

The Members were advised that the SPGs had been prepared over the last two years in conjunction with Government Departments and Agencies as well as a number of representatives from professional bodies.  He explained that the approach had helped to raise awareness amongst those bodies, to alleviate and address their concerns and to ensure that the Council was abreast of the latest issues.

The Committee:

·        agreed the proposed content of the latest versions of the SPGs; and

·        supported the addition of the Advertising & Signage and Transport documents to the list SPGs proposed to be issued for public consultation.

            The Committee noted that the following two items had been withdrawn by the applicant as they were no longer required:

·        (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2019/0082/F – Section 54 application to remove condition 2 of planning permission Z/2010/0434/F on former site of Maple Leaf at Park Avenue (Condition 2 relates to the requirement for the approved social club to be constructed and operational); and

·        (Reconsidered Item) LA04/2019/0083/F – Section 54 application to remove condition 2 of planning permission LA04/2015/0075/F on former site of Maple Leaf at Park Avenue (Condition 2 relates to the requirement for the approved social club to be constructed and operational)

The Principal Planning officer explained that the application had been listed for Committee on 15th June, 2021 but that it had been deferred to allow the Committee to visit the site, which had subsequently taken place on 10th August, 2021. The application was then on the agenda for the Committee on 17th August, 2021, however it was withdrawn from the agenda as amended drawings were submitted late and the proposal description was amended.  Further to this, the application was subsequently refused by the Planning Committee on 21stOctober, 2021 for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the scheme would result in overdevelopment of the site as it failed to provide a quality residential environment for prospective residents due to inadequate and inappropriate public and private amenity space; and

2.     The proposal was contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that the proposed amenity space would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on proposed residents by way of noise and nuisance.

The Committee was advised that amended drawings had been submitted by the applicant on 22nd October, 2021, the day after the October Committee meeting.  The drawings included the reduction by one residential unit and the addition of a roof terrace on the thirdfloor.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that the Planning Department had sought legal advice regarding the submission of the drawings.  Whilst the amendments addressed the refusal reasons in respect of the provision of amenity space, additional concerns had been raised regarding personal safety and overlooking. She explained that while there was no legislative provision to require the Council to consider amended plans at any point in the planning process, the Council was duty bound to have regard to all material considerations. Therefore, she explained that the amended drawings had addressed the Council’s concerns with regard to proposed amenity space, in accordance with the guidance in Creating Places.

She explained that the additional concerns in relation to overlooking and personal safety were not considered to be insurmountable, and that the agent had submitted further amended drawings to address those concerns. The Members were advised that the amended drawings were uploaded to the Planning Portal on 4thFebruary 2022. The amended application was subsequently re-advertised in the press, additional neighbour notification had been undertaken and the Conservation Area Officer (CAO) had been reconsulted.

The Members were advised that the provision of the roof terrace would result in an additional 40 square metres of amenity space within the proposed development. The reduction in the number of units would also result in a reduction in the quantity of amenity space required. The overall amenity space provision was now 177 square metres, equating to 11.8 sq metres per unit.  As per the previous Addendum report, the Principal Planning officer outlined that, as the application site was located within an inner urban location, it was therefore accepted that amenity space of 10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14a

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application.

            She drew the Committee’s attention to the large number of Late items which had been received in respect of the application.  She explained that letters of support had been received from Newington Housing Association and the Housing Executive’s Belfast Region Place Shaping Team.  The Committee was advised that officers were supportive of social housing but that the scheme should meet the tests of PPS7 QD1.

            The Agent had also submitted correspondence, stating that no feedback had been provided to them; that the refusal reasons included parking issues as well as an impact on trees and that they struggled to understand how the Council had reached that conclusion with DFI Roads and Tree Officer responses still outstanding; that the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement which had been submitted on 8th February had not yet been reviewed; they disputed the density figures in the report; and q request for the application to be withdrawn from the Planning Committee.

            In response, the Principal Planning officer explained that the application had been the subject of a Pre Application Discussion for a class C3 use – assisted living.  The concerns with the application under consideration had also been raised at the PAD despite the change from class C3 to C1 use.  She advised the Members that no DFI Roads or parking refusal reasons were proposed and that reference to parking in the refusal reasons was in respect of the layout being dominated by parking, which would contribute to, alongside other concerns, a poor quality living environment for prospective residents.  Regarding the trees, she stated that an Arboricultural report had not been requested.  Instead, the agent was asked to forward the survey that was used to inform the condition of trees on the tree constraints map but that no report was produced.  The Tree officer had since considered the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement and had made a number of recommendations and had subsequently requested the removal of refusal reason 4 regarding the impact to trees to be removed.

            In relation to density, she advised the Committee that the report, at 9.14, should in fact read “The density of the proposal site would equate to 110 dwelling units per hectare.  This is nearly double the highest existing density in the area”.

            In respect of further comments which had been submitted by the agent as part of the Late Items report, she advised the Committee that NI Water had recommended a refusal and that the Council owned and maintained Alexandra Park.  The agent had stated that there was sufficient communal open space provided and that the site was located adjacent to Alexandra Park.  In response, the Principal Planning officer highlighted that officers considered the amenity provision to be insufficient both in quality and quantum, as per the case officer report.

The Committee was advised that a consultation response was received from DFI Roads on 10th February.  It had reiterated its request  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14b

(Councillor Hutchinson left the meeting at this point in proceedings)

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with the details of the application and application LA04/2020/2325/F, which was also on the agenda and was inter-related.

He explained that the application, along with associated applications LA04/2019/0082/F and LA04/2019/0083/F, had been considered by the Planning Committee in December 2019. The Committee had resolved to approve all three applications subject to conditions and a Section 76 Planning Agreement. The planning agreement was intended to secure the following:

·        a developer contribution of £52,000 for enhancement works at the King George V Playing Fields;

·        securing the 12 apartments as affordable housing; and

·        ensuring the delivery and ongoing maintenance of the proposed pocket park to be provided as part of the development of the 12 apartments.

He reported that, since the applications had been approved by the Planning Committee, both the Planning Service and Legal Services had made significant efforts to finalise the Section 76 Planning Agreement.  However, it had not been possible to progress it with the applicant. Firstly, it was disputed that the 12 apartments should be delivered as affordable housing, despite it being central to the consideration of the planning balance and justification for the grant of planning permission, the proposal being contrary to Policy OS 1 of PPS 8 through the loss of Open Space. Secondly, and more recently, by failure to commit to the delivery of the pocket park, which was essential recreation space to off-set the lack of amenity space within the proposed development, as well as to help compensate for the loss and limited provision of Open Space overall. He stated that officers considered the terms of the planning agreement originally agreed by the Committee to be wholly reasonable. The Members were reminded that the Section 54 applications, LA04/2019/0082/F and LA04/2019/0083/F, had been withdrawn by the applicant as they were no longer required. He stated that officers advised that the application could not be separated out from the agreement.

The Committee was provided with the planning history of the site.  In June 2011, permission had been granted on the site and adjacent land to the east where the Maple Leaf Club was originally located for mixed use development comprising 21 dwellings and a replacement social club (Z/2010/0434/F). The original permission included conditions requiring the provision of social housing and the build out of the replacement social club, required to offset the loss of open space. Those conditions were subsequently varied under applications Z/2011/0827/F and Z/2011/0829/F.

Planning application LA04/2015/0075/F was granted in February 2016 for modifications to the original scheme, for the replacement of the Maple Leaf Club and the erection of 21 dwellings (Z/2010/0434/F). The amended scheme reduced the size of the club and amended some of the house types.  Condition 2 prevented occupation of the residential units until the replacement Maple Leaf Club had been erected in accordance with the new approved plans. Condition 3 required that the development would be delivered as social / affordable housing. The Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14c

The Planning Manager advised the Committee of the details of the application, which was linked to the previous application, LA04/2019/0081/F.  It sought permission for 21 social/affordable housing units, comprising 17 townhouses and 4 semi-detached dwellings, with car parking, landscaping and associated site and access works. 

            He outlined the key issues which had been considered during the assessment, including the principle of development, the loss of open space, provision of public and private amenity space, impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on residential amenity, impact on existing trees / proposed landscaping, access and parking, drainage and flood risk and waste-water infrastructure.

The Committee was advised that the site was un-zoned ‘whiteland’ within the BUAP 2001 and draft BMAP 2015.  The proposed development would result in the loss of open space, including the bowling green previously located on the site, protected by Policy OS1 of PPS 8.

The Planning Manager explained that permission had been granted in June 2011, under Z/2010/0434/F, on essentially the same site, but that had also included land to the west for a mixed use development including a replacement of the original Maple Leaf club and 21 dwellings. That Members were advised that that permission included conditions requiring the provision of social housing and build out of the replacement social club, which was required to offset the loss of open space. Those conditions were subsequently varied under applications Z/2011/0827/F and Z/2011/0829/F.

            The Committee was advised that LA04/2015/0075/F was granted in February 2016 for modifications to the original scheme for replacement of the Maple Leaf Club and erection of 21 dwellings (Z/2010/0434/F).  The amended scheme reduced the size of the club and amended some of the house types. The Planning Manager explained that Condition 2 prevented occupation of the residential units until the replacement Maple Leaf Club had been erected. Condition 3 required the development to be delivered as social / affordable housing. He outlined to the Committee that it appeared that the main site access and part of the access road between Blocks A and C had already been constructed and that that served the development of 13 houses to the north of the site (LA04/2015/0052/F). Therefore, it was considered that the development had commenced and represented a fall-back position for the developer, albeit that it would require the construction of the replacement social club.  He reported that the current application for 21 social/affordable dwellings was a standalone application for residential development and that the developer did not wish to construct the social club as previously approved.

            He reminded the Committee that it had previously resolved to approve application LA04/2019/0081/F for 12 apartments (social/affordable housing) on the part of the site previously approved for the replacement social club.

The Members were advised that Policy OS2 required public open space to be provided as an integral part of new housing schemes of 25 units or more, and stated that at least 10% of the total site area should be open space in normal circumstances. Whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14d

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with the principal aspects of the retrospective application.

He explained the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the application included the principle of an amusement arcade at that location, the impact on the character and appearance of the area and the impact on amenity.

He outlined that the site was “white land” within BUAP and dBMAP and within the Belfast City Centre in both Development Plans. The surrounding area was of mixed character containing a variety of retail, offices, bars, restaurants and a hotel opposite. New purpose built managed student accommodation was being constructed on the land to the south. There were no family dwellings or schools in the immediate area.

The Committee was advised that Environmental Health and DFI Roads had offered no objections. Building Control, which was responsible for amusement licensing, was concerned that the proposal might result in a cumulative impact due to the number of amusement arcades in the surrounding area. There were currently three other amusement / gambling premises within 200 metres.  Officers advised that the proposal was to extend an existing amusement arcade and not to create new amusement arcade premises. The site was located within the City Centre where main town centre uses such as this were acceptable in principle. There would be no harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the area, amenity or transportation.

            The Committee was advised that no third party objections had been received.

(Councillor Groogan joined the meeting at this point during proceedings)

            The Deputy Chairperson welcomed Ms. L. McCausland, on behalf of the applicant, to the meeting.  She advised the Committee that while the sign on the exterior of the site had been changed, there were no gaming machines currently within the café area of the site and that Building Control had been out on a number of occasions and could therefore verify that.

            In response to a Member’s question, the Planning Manager confirmed that, while the Permit Policy was a material consideration for the Committee, officers did not feel that there were any planning reasons on which to refuse the application.  The Divisional Solicitor advised the Committee that the applicant would still have to go to the Licensing Committee to request a permit for the site, irrespective of the decision taken by the Planning Committee.

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that the application was recommended for approval, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the conditions.  On a vote, six Members voted for the recommendation, two against and four no votes, and it was accordingly declared carried.

The Principal Planning officer outlined the details of the retrospective advertisement consent which was being sought for a temporary mesh banner sign for a period of 24 months.

The Committee was advised that the Belfast Telegraph Building itself, adjacent, was listed and that the site was directly opposite the Cathedral Quarter Conservation Area.

The key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposed development included:

·        impact on local amenity

·        impact on public safety

·        impact on the setting of listed buildings; and

·        commercial and regeneration considerations

The Members were advised that the site was located within the city development limits for Belfast as designated within the Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2004.

Historic Environment Division had been consulted and considered that the proposal was contrary to the policy requirements of SPPS 6.12 and BH11 of PPS6.  It had stated that the material, size, scale, alignment and location of the banner signage, in proximity to the historic fabric of the listed building, adversely affected its setting. HED noted that previous permissions in respect of the signage had been granted consent for 2 years and 1 year respectively.

The Principal Planning officer outlined that the proposed advertisement was considered contrary to Planning Policy (PPS17 Outdoor Advertisements) and was therefore considered unacceptable. There was a history of previous applications on the site for the same proposal.  However, the most recent application, LA04/2021/1586/A, had been before the Planning Committee for consideration in October 2021.  At that meeting, the Committee had raised concerns with the fact that the proposal had already been granted an extension and there was no further advancement in the development of the site.  The Committee had resolved to refuse the application in November 2021 on the following grounds:

1.     The proposed advertising, was contrary to AD 1 of PPS 17, in that the advertising by virtue of its position on the host building, its size and scale would through its undue prominence and excessive visibility have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, the character of the area and detract from the appearance of the building.

2.     The proposed advertising shroud, was contrary to BH 11 of PPS 6, in that the advertisement would, if permitted, not respect the architectural form and detailing of the Listed Building by reason of its scale, height and alignment and did not respect the character of the setting of the heritage asset.

The Deputy Chairperson welcomed Mr. S. McGimpsey, applicant, to the meeting.  He outlined the difficulties that the commercial property market was facing as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. He advised that the locality was going through a period of transition with the construction of the new university campus and that the aim of the application was to secure a tenant and funding package to enable the commencement of development of the site.

The Principal Planning officer explained that, whilst the applicant’s position was not unreasonable, it could be argued that, given the advert had been in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14f

The Principal Planning officer presented the main details of the application to the Committee, for the subdivision of an existing dwelling into two apartments with a two-storey rear extension.

She explained that the surrounding area was residential and that the site was located within the Lisburn Road draft Area of Townscape Character in dBMAP (2014).

The Committee was advised that the application had been submitted before the Committee as NI Water objected to the proposal.

The key issues which had been considered during the assessment included:

·        the principle of dwelling at that location;

·        character/layout/design;

·        private amenity/landscaping;

·        access/parking;

·        impact on neighbouring amenity;

·        impact on an established residential area; and

·        the NI Water consultation response.

The Principal Planning officer explained that the area displayed both dwelling houses and apartments as well as conversion to apartments and therefore, in principle, the conversion was acceptable. She described how the scale and massing of the extension was considered sympathetic with the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. The Members were advised that the internal space standards were exceeded, and that the private amenity space provided was also well in excess of that recommended.

She outlined that NI Water had not recommended refusal but that it had stated that public foul and public storm capacity was not available at present to service the proposed development.

The Principal Planning officer explained that no supporting data or information had been provided by NI Water in respect of the application. She outlined that, while the objection was a material consideration, it was a matter for the Committee to determine the weight to be attached to it.

The applicant had been advised to liaise with NI Water and NI Water had advised that it intended to upgrade the Waste Water Treatment Works. The Principal Planning officer explained that the proposed apartments would contained 3 bedrooms, which was the same as the existing dwelling and that the maximum number of occupants was not therefore being increased. She outlined that whilst it was acknowledged that each apartment would have its own kitchen and toilet which might generate more waste water, it was considered that the modest scale of the scheme presented a significantly like for like proposal which would not exacerbate the impact on the waste water system to such a level that would warrant a refusal. She advised the Committee that the applicant was currently in discussions with NI Water regarding a potential solution and that it was considered that the issue could be resolved by means of a pre occupation condition.

The Committee was advised that NI Water had a duty to connect significant committed development across the city to its waste water infrastructure. Such development, which included unimplemented permissions for over 20,000 houses and significant levels of commercial space across the city, would not all come forward at once and some might not come forward at all.  It was therefore considered unlikely that the proposal would result in a significant impact on waste water infrastructure over and above the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14g

The Principal Planning officer provided the Committee with the key aspects of the application.

The key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposal included:

·        the principle of the proposed development and use at that location;

·        layout, scale, form, massing, and design;

·        impact on built heritage;

·        impact on amenity;

·        impact on transport and associated infrastructure;

·        flooding and drainage impacts;

·        impact on natural heritage assets;

·        contamination and remediation of the site; and

·        developer contributions.

The Committee was advised that the site fell within the development limit within the BUAP and in both versions of dBMAP and was not subject to any zonings. The Principal Planning officer explained that redevelopment of the site for residential use was acceptable under the previously granted permission and that there had been no change in policy direction since that time, subject to detailed considerations as set out in regional policies.

He explained that the proposed layout essentially repeated the previously approved layout arrangements, comprising two blocks, one behind the other, with areas of landscaping and parking.  The front block siting had been revised from the previous permission and was

within a more constrained footprint so that the block did not extend as close to the site frontage.  He outlined that the separation distances between the apartment blocks had been slightly reduced to an average of 33 metres. The rear block was located further away from the rear boundary compared to the previous approval by approximately 1.5 metres.

The Committee was advised that the layout did not include basement parking within the layout, as previously approved.  Parking court areas were proposed instead, resulting in an increased area of hard-surfacing compared with the previous permission. He explained that it roughly equated to the larger built form area of the buildings in the previous permission and was acceptable.

The Members were advised that the front block had been reduced in height by approximately 1 metre from the previous approval. The height of the rear block had also been revised, with an overall reduction of approximately 1.9-2 metres from the highest section, but with a slight increase of the lower section of 1.3 metres compared to the previously approved details.

The Principal Planning officer reported that the proposal would not adversely impact on the amenity of existing residents due to the separation distances to existing properties and the layout which would ensure no adverse amenity impacts for prospective residents. He explained that amenity space provision equated to 18 square metres per unit and the overall open space provision exceeded the 10% requirement in PPS7 & PPS8. The site was also in close proximity to public open space. The floorspace of the proposed apartments was in accordance with the space standards as set out in PPS7.

Parking would be provided at a ratio of 1:1 which was slightly below parking standards. However, Travel cards for a period of 3 years, in addition to a car club facility, were proposed as part of the travel plan arrangement to mitigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14h

The Committee was advised that the application sought to vary conditions 9 and 10 of planning permission LA04/2018/1932/F in order to amend the required remediation strategy for the site.

Condition 9 had been successfully discharged under LA04/2019/1741/DC on 3rd September 2019.  However, under the current variation of condition application, an Updated Remediation Strategy had been submitted for consideration. The Updated Strategy had updated the assessment of the site with respect to ground gas, concluding that special gas protection measures were not required.

Environmental Health had been consulted and had offered no objections to the variation of conditions 9 and 10, having recommended wording in respect of it.

            The Committee granted approval to the application, subject to conditions and the satisfactory conclusion of public re-consultation.  Delegated authority was given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of conditions.