Agenda item

            The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application had previously been deferred by the Committee at its meeting in April, 2023 to allow officers to explore the availability of additional evidence with regard to the environmental impacts of short-term holiday lets.

            He reported that the Council's Environmental Health and Local Development Plan Housing Team had been consulted as well as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and  had been asked to provide any evidence with regard to the environmental impacts of short term holiday lights such as noise or antisocial behaviour complaints. 

            He reported that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had stated that an evidence base for complaints from Airbnb’s could not be provided as it did not record this is a residential type.  He added that Environmental Health had run a report for short term lets services for the BT15 post code area since 2018 and, whilst there had been no complaints related to the Limestone Road, there had been complaints recorded within the post code area at Glandore Avenue, Fortwilliam Crescent and Duncairn Gardens.

            He stated that, in consideration of the adoption of the new Plan Strategy, the recommendation to the Committee was that planning permission should be refused for the following draft reasons:

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy HOU13, criterion (c), as was not sited within an existing tourism cluster or in close proximity to a visitor attraction;

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy HOU3, in that the proposal would fail to protect existing residential stock for permanent occupation and was contrary to criterion (a) as the proposed use was not considered complimentary to the surrounding residential uses and would likely result in adverse effects on residential amenity within this established residential area; and

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy HOU3, in that the proposal would fail to protect existing residential stock for permanent occupation and was contrary to criteria (c) and (d) in that the short term let use would not be considered subordinate to the residential use and did not provide a separate user entrance as public access will be required.

            The Chairperson welcomed Mr. J. Young, the applicant, to the meeting.  Mr. Young stated that he had made several enquires as to the correct procedure for listing consultation responses including timeframes and that the case officer had confirmed that planning had received the Environmental response on the 1st and 7th of June 2023 but had only published it on the planning portal 24th October.  He stated that the consultation responses had been received outside the 21-day consultation reply rule.

            He explained that he had requested the date on which the application had been referred to the Committee by a Member and the material planning considerations, but that he was still awaiting confirmation.

            Mr. Young stated that, comments made by a Member at a previous meeting of the Committee with regard to constituents having contacted his office to report that the property had been operating as a holiday let had been untrue and that he had confirmed this, with supporting evidence to the Planning Service.

            Mr. Young outlined his application timeline in relation the adoption of the Plan Strategy and stated that he believed that his application had been submitted before its adoption and therefore should not have been subject to its policies.

            He concluded by stating that he believed that his proposed use is a mixed residential use and therefore Policy HOU3 did not apply and that, contrary to the case officer’s opinion, the site was not located in an existing tourism cluster or in close proximity to a visitor attraction, its location on the Limestone Road placed in within the Castle Ward that included The Cathedral Quarter.

            The City Solicitor responded to some of the issues which Mr. Young had raised. She stated that, whilst the consultation responses were requested within 21 days, the Committee was obliged to consider any representations received up to and including the date of its decision.  She also stated that the process, in which the application had been referred to the Committee by a Member, was in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation and that she was satisfied that the decision making process was both lawful and appropriate.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Maskey,

            Seconded by Alderman McCullough, and

      Resolved – That the Committee refuses the application and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the refusal reasons.