Agenda item

            The Planning Manager (Development Management) provided the principal aspects of the planning application and of the Listed Building Consent application to the Committee.  He explained that they were previously considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting in December 2019, where the Committee resolved to grant consents to the application with conditions, contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

            At the December 2019 meeting, it was confirmed that, under the Planning (Notification of Applications) Direction 2017, it was necessary to notify the application for Listed Building Consent to the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) as the resolution to approve the application was contrary to the views of a statutory consultee, namely, HED. 

            The DFI had since advised the Council that it did not consider it necessary for either of the applications to be referred to it for determination. The DFI had advised that it was important that the Council satisfied itself that, before determining the application, it had fully assessed all required details pertaining to the listed buildings and that all necessary expert advice in relation to built heritage matters had been duly considered.

            The Chairperson advised the Committee that Ms. J. Stokes, HED, was in attendance and she was welcomed to the meeting.  She outlined to the Members that:

·        when a building is listed, it is listed in its entirety, internally and externally and, with care, most listed buildings could be extended and adapted to accommodate some degree of change, while ensuring that the essential character of the building was retained and its features of special interest intact;

·        unlike a normal planning process, a plan and an external elevation was not enough to show how a new use would work internally.  A new use would require new services including plumbing, fire proofing and safe escape, for example;

·        HED welcomed a new use to the listed building which was on the Buildings at Risk register, but its reuse and any development must balance in the listed building’s favour as it was protected by legislation;

·        Wilton House formed part of a late Georgian terrace of note in Belfast;

·        the development of the listed building was insufficiently detailed and therefore failed to address policy and that only two drawings had been submitted to address the building and these were schematic only without any relevant detail;

·        the development to the rear failed to take account of the setting of the listed building;

·        the bulk of the existing proposal was too great and represented overdevelopment of the setting – including issues with amenity/ancillary requirements; and some windows at 45degree oriels.

            A Member sought clarification from Ms. Stokes regarding the development to the rear and how realistic it was to expect a developer to incorporate something akin to the former stables which would have been situated there.  Ms. Stokes advised the Committee that HED would expect to see a structure which respected the dominance of the listed building and which stepped down towards the rear.

            The Committee then welcomed Mr P. Stinson, agent, to the meeting.  In addressing the refusal reasons as detailed within the Case officer’s report, they advised the Committee that:

·      weight should be afforded to the fact that the proposal would secure the future of a currently vacant Listed Building, which was on the At Risk register;

·      significant amendments had been made to the proposal since submission – focusing on improving the relationship between the new build and the existing building;

·      HED had accepted the principle of a separate new building on the site and considered that the separation distance went some way in achieving subservience and providing an acceptable relationship between old and new;

·      in considering the acceptability of the design, the unsightly appearance of the existing rear return and the contribution it made to the character and appearance of the conservation area should weigh in the planning balance;

·      balance was required in respect of the private amenity space, and that, due to its city centre location, the proposal was around 300 metres from the public grounds of the City Hall and that a park was close by on Durham Street;

·      80% of the units would face away from the Courtyard and that all units met the recommended internal space standards in Addendum PPS7, even though there was no such requirement for a city centre development; and

·      The Travel plan included providing residents with membership of the Belfast Bikes scheme, taking advantage of the nearby hub.

            A Member asked the agent and architect to explain why details relating to the current condition of the building and the historic fabric, as requested by HED, had not been submitted.  Mr H. McConnell, architect, advised that they had provided drawings detailing which walls were to be demolished or retained, and which windows were being reinstated.  He advised the Committee that a conditions survey only provided a picture of the building at a point in time and that there had been significant anti-social behaviour on the site, including fires.  He explained that the application was coming forward on the basis of a refusal, and that it was being brought forward by a local, Belfast-based developer who had already incurred significant expense on the project to date.

            The Committee noted the information which had been provided and noted that no decision would be taken on the application until the application was formally presented at a Committee meeting later that evening.