Agenda item

            The Senior Planning officer presented the Members with the principal aspects of the application.

            The key issues which had been considered by officers in the assessment of the application were:

·        the principle of development;

·        impact on the character and appearance of the area;

·        impact upon the setting of nearby listed building;

·        residential amenity;

·        provision of parking and access; and

·        water infrastructure, drainage and flooding.

            The Members were advised that the site was located adjacent to a mixture of commercial, public and residential land uses and was within the development limits identified under the existing Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) and draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. In dBMAP (both versions) it was located adjacent to an arterial route and within a Commercial Node/Area of Parking Restraint.  The site currently comprised vacant land with previous buildings demolished.

The Senior Planning officer reported that there was a planning history on the site which informed consideration of the current proposal.  Application LA4/2015/1160/F permitted 18 apartments on lands at 165-169 Holywood Road, granted in June 2018, and application LA04/2017/1558/F permitted 4 apartments on lands at 159-163 Holywood Road, granted in May 2017. The Members were reminded that both approvals were extant and provided a legitimate fallback position.

She explained that the current application combined both sites and proposed to build and manage it as a single development.  She pointed out that the proposal was amended and reduced during the processing of the application and had largely been informed by the extant approvals on the site, presenting four stories with a fifth set back on the corner of the Holywood Road and Dundela Crescent, stepping down to four stories where it adjoined its neighbouring building on the Holywood Road.

The Members were advised that no parking was proposed but that the site was located adjacent to an arterial route which was well served by public transport and was within an area of parking restraint in a commercial node.   The Senior Planning officer reported that integral cycle parking was provided.  She explained that the applicant had submitted a Residential Framework Travel Plan and Service Management Plan.

The Senior Planning officer pointed out that DfI Roads had objected to the development, requesting that further sustainable travel measures be provided. She highlighted, however, that given the fallback position it was considered unreasonable to insist on additional measures, noting that DfI Roads sought no such measures for the previous two permissions, which could be implemented.

A Grade B2 listed building at Nos. 2 to 4 Belmont Road, occupied by the UUP Headquarter Offices, sat on the opposite side of the Belmont Road from the site. The Members were advised that HED had stated that the proposal, as presented, would have an adverse impact on the listed building and its setting, however, it deferred to the Council in relation to the material consideration afforded to previously approved applications.  The Senior Planning explained that officers felt that significant weight should be given to the previous approvals and were satisfied, on balance, that the amended proposals would not have any greater adverse impact on the listed building than what was already approved and could be implemented.

The Members were advised that no third-party representations had been received and Environmental Health, NI Water and Rivers Agency had offered no objection to the proposal.

The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Flynn to the meeting, who was objecting to the proposal.  He advised the Members that:

·        the HED objection should be given more consideration.  The report referred to two extant approvals, however, the 2015 approval predated the awarding of grade B2 listed status of 2-4 Belmont Road whereby HED was not consulted, and, similarly for the 2017 approval, HED was not consulted;

·        HED have said that while they were not consulted in 2015 or 2017, the impact of the application had not satisfied an understanding of the heritage asset of the Listed Building and was contrary to Paragraph 6.12 of SPPS under listed buildings and Policy BH 11 Planning Policy Statement 6;

·        the elevations of the proposal were not in keeping with the surrounding buildings, being multiple stories higher, and, considering the scale, proportion and massing of the listed building, the proposal impacted the setting of it under policy BH 11 and crucially it would draw the eye disproportionately from the nearby heritage asset at multiple angles, but particularly when coming down the Belmont and Holywood Roads;

·        consideration should also be given to the historic Strand Cinema building directly across from the site and, while it was not listed currently, it did contribute to an area of special historical context along the stretch of the Holywood Road when taken along with the listed building;

·        DfI had also objected to the proposal in relation to lack of suitable measures to encourage active travel. While the extant approvals had no DfI objection, it was 4 years later in a different context, after the Council had declared a Climate Emergency, and two IPCC reports outlining the severe impact of climate chaos; and

·        the applicant must do more the encourage a move away from car usage.

            The Chairperson then welcomed Mr. P. Stinson, agent, to the meeting.  He outlined to the Committee that:

·        the site of the former Stormont Inn had been vacant for some time and the proposal presented an opportunity for townscape improvements to a key nodal site;

·        the applicant had worked collaboratively with planning officers and made significant reductions to the proposals to arrive at the current scheme which was before Members;

·        there had been no third-party objections to the application;

·        there was a variety of materials used in the area;

·        the proposed building would have no greater impact on the listed building opposite than the extant permissions and the use of materials provided a modern contrast;

·        the extant permission were an important consideration and the applicant was committed to providing green transport measures to residents for one year, and that the site was in a highly accessible location with excellent transport links and nearby to amenities in Belmont village.

            The officer’s recommendation that, in accordance with the Council decision of 4th May 2021, the Chief Executive would exercise her delegated authority to approve the application was put to the Members. 

            On a vote, seven members voted in favour of the recommendation and four against and it was declared carried.