Agenda and minutes

            An apology for inability to attend was reported for Councillor Hanvey.

            The minutes of the meeting of 11th February, 2025 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 March, 2025, subject to the omission of those matters in respect of which the Council had delegated its powers to the Committee.

            Councillor Brennan declared an interest in item 3a - “Notification of Abandonment/Extinguishment”, in that her employer had requested the extinguishment, and item 9d – “LA04/2024/0626/F - Erection of 104no. social rented residential units (comprising a mix of General Social Housing and Category 1 over 55's accommodation) across two detached blocks [ranging between 3 and 5 storeys], landscaping, communal and private amenity space, ancillary cycle and car parking provision, and other associated site works – 1 Havelock House Havelock Place”, in that she had met with the applicant regarding the development, prior to becoming a Council Member.

            The Committee noted that the following item had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·        LA04/2021/0547/F - Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of site for 2 no. commercial units on ground floor; 11 no. 1 & 2 bed apartments; landscaped communal courtyard; and all associated site works. - Lands at 124-126 Lisburn Road

The Committee noted the notification of the proposed loading bay at Nelson Street.

The Committee noted the notification of Extinguishment for the grassed area at River Terrace.

            The Committee noted the appeals decisions.

            The Committee noted the planning decisions issued in February, 2025.

            The Committee noted the list of live applications for major development.

The Committee noted the list of Committee decisions which had not yet been issued.

            The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that notification had been received from the Historic Environment Division (HED) with regard to the proposed listing of the following buildings:

·        119 University Street;

·        121 University Street; and

·        21 Wellington Park.

            The Committee noted and supported the proposed listings.

            The Planning Manager summarised the consultation responses and proposed changes to the draft Planning Application Validation Checklist and outlined the next steps.

            The Committee noted the report.

            The Committee agreed to delegate to the Director of Planning and Building Control those Local planning applications to which NI Water had objected.

            The Planning Manager outlined the planning history of the application and explained that the Section 76 planning agreement had not yet been completed.

            He informed the Committee that the remaining obligation to be secured through the planning agreement was vibration monitoring of the adjacent Scheduled Thompson dock during construction and explained that following discussion with the applicant, officers had explored the option of vibration monitoring being dealt with by condition rather than through a Section 76 planning agreement.

            He reported that DfC HED had recently confirmed that it was content that a planning condition be applied and advised that this would be consistent with the approach taken to other proposed developments in the area.

            The Planning Manager recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions, to include a condition to deal with the vibration monitoring requirements, rather than a Section 76 planning agreement.

            The Committee approved the application, subject to conditions, to include a condition to deal with the vibration monitoring requirements, rather than a Section 76 planning agreement and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the condition and to deal with any other matters that might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Planning Manager provided the Committee with an overview of the application and pointed out that the application had previously been approved by the Committee at its meeting in June, 2023.

            He explained that the Committee had granted planning permission, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement and that the Section 76 planning agreement, required to secure three of the proposed thirteen apartments as affordable housing, had not been completed.

            He stated that the provision of three affordable housing units was necessary to make the development acceptable, in compliance with Policy HOU5 and that, without the Section 76 planning agreement to secure the affordable housing, the proposal was considered to be unacceptable.

            The Committee agreed that, should the Section 76 planning agreement, required by the planning permission granted by the Committee at its meeting in June, 2023, not be completed by 30th April, 2025, the application be deemed refused.

            The Committee delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to, in the event that the Section 76 planning agreement was not completed by 30th April, 2025, finalise the wording of the reasons for refusal.

            The Planning Manager outlined the planning history of the application and explained that a Pre-Action Protocol letter had been received by the Council in February, 2025 which set out a range of concerns, that included the adequacy of the consultation process, that objections from local residents had not been adequately reported to the Committee, the interpretation of planning policy and procedural matters.

            He explained that, due to concerns raised over procedural matters, the application was being reported back to the Committee, that included the opportunity for a deputation from the Donegall Pass Residents Association to make representations to the Committee.

            He provided an overview of the application and highlighted the consultations responses that included a further response from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) in which it objected to the amended description of a fully social housing scheme and maintained its position that the scheme should provide no more than 80% of the residential units as social housing to avoid a mono-tenure and to promote sustainable and balanced communities.

            The Planning Manager referred to the addendum Committee report which included an updated assessment of the scheme that addressed a proposal for mono-tenure housing and whether it would deliver sustainable and balanced communities.  He stated that the advice of the NIHE, as the housing authority, should be given due weight and pointed out that it was unsupportive of a 100% social housing scheme.  He added that the applicant had not provided evidence that a mixed tenure scheme would not be viable but stated that a stipulation that all 104 residential units must be provided as social housing could result in deliverability issues.

            He stated that it was recommended that planning permission was granted, subject to conditions and a Section 76 planning agreement, and that the social housing requirement be set at a maximum of 84 units (80%), with the potential allowance of up to 100% social housing, should the issues be satisfactorily addressed at a future point and subject to approval by the Council, in consultation with NIHE.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. P. O Muirigh, Mr. E. Purvis and Mr. P. McDonald to the meeting.

            Mr. McDonald referred to a local resident who had a high needs autistic son who had been greatly affected by the demolition works that had taken place on site and explained that she had asked him to communicate to the Committee that the site was 50 metres from their residence and would have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of her son.

            Mr. Purvis explained the strong opposition from the local community to the proposed development, that included a petition of opposition that had been signed by 462 local residents, he said equated to every household within the district declaring opposition to the current plans.

            He stated that there had been 52 comments of objection posted on the online Planning Portal, with no comments in support of the scheme and that local residents had attended two public consultation meetings to convey their concerns and objections.

            He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        Background;

·        Principle of hotel use;

·        Impact on the listed building;

·        Impact on the conservation area;

·        Archaeology;

·        Design and placemaking;

·        Climate change;

·        Access and transport;

·        Health impacts;

·        Environmental protection;

·        Flood risk and drainage;

·        Waste-water infrastructure;

·        Waste management;

·        Natural heritage;

·        Section 76 legal agreement; and

·        Pre-application community consultation.

            She stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission and Listed Building Consent were granted, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson informed the Committee that Mr. T. Stokes was present at the meeting on behalf of the applicant.

            Mr. Stokes stated that the proposal would secure the restoration and upkeep of the prominent, vacant Listed Building and would bring it back into use.  He added that the proposed hotel would be a great addition to the city and would bring life back into the area.

            The Committee granted planning permission and 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 might that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the report and to undertake a site visit to the application site.

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the application and referred to the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of the proposed uses;

·        Impact on amenity;

·        Climate change;

·        Open space;

·        Access and transport;

·        Health impacts;

·        Environmental protection; and

·        Natural heritage.

            She explained that the site was within a highly sustainable location that offered convenience to the end user of the development and would provide surface for all-weather conditions which would benefit the community.

            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 might arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained that the Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation (PBMSA) had suffered some delays towards the end of the building programme which had resulted in an abnormally high number of vacancies within the building for the 2024/25 academic year.

            She stated that the application sought full planning permission for a temporary change of use of 92 (30%) of the 307 student bedrooms to short term let accommodation until September 2025.

            She reported that no representations had been received, that consultation was not necessary and that a Section 77 to vary the Section 76 planning agreement of the host was necessary and had been agreed in principle with Legal Services.

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

            The Chairperson informed the Committee that Mr. T. Stokes, TSA Planning, was present at the meeting, together with the applicants, Mr. S. Crawley and Mr. D. Lindsay to answer any questions that Members might have.

            In response to several questions from the Committee with regard to the existing students availing of the accommodation, Mr. Lindsay explained that the 92 units were contained on three floors of the building and were self-contained units that would limit interaction with existing students.  He stated that they hoped to target corporate clients that would prefer longer stays.

            He cited other comparable cities, such as Edinburgh, which operated a similar scheme during the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and explained that, whilst not typical during term time, it was during the summer months.

            A number of Members raised concerns with regard to rate relief applied to PBMSA and whether that would still apply to commercial use.  In response, officers agreed to write to Land and Property Services to clarify whether the Council had the ability to draw down rates on the temporary use of the PBMSA.

            At the request of a Member, officers agreed that the potential for consultation with the existing students would be discussed with the applicant.

            The Committee agreed to approve the application, subject to conditions and delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and Section 77 (amendment to the original Section 76 planning agreement) and to deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to remove an existing stained glass window and install a new stained glass window on the ground floor of City Hall.

            She stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable.

            The Committee granted Listed Building Consent 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 Director of Planning and Building Control outlined two outstanding debts that Legal Services had advised that, it would not be economically viable to incur the costs of obtaining a judgement and enforcing the debt and explained that every effort to recoup the debts and the methods adopted had been in accordance with the Council’s Accounting Manual procedures.

            The Committee authorised the writing off of the outstanding accounts in accordance with Section M12 of the Council’s Financial Regulations.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control presented the Quarter 3 financial position for the Planning Committee.

            The Committee noted the report.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control outlined a response to the Notice of Motion for the Council to intervene in the Public Inquiry to the Curraghinalt Project (Dalradian Gold Mine) applications being held by the Planning Appeals Commission.

            The Committee agreed that the report be referred to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee for consideration.