Agenda item

            The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application to the Committee and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        Principle of the change of use;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area;

·        Impact on amenity; and

·        Proliferation of Amusement Arcades.

            She reported that an additional objection had been received from Mr. E. Poots MLA which stated that the proposal was inappropriate in principle, that the use was incompatible to neighbouring property, First Church and that the proposal harmed the image and profile of Belfast city centre.

            She explained that the issue of the impact of the proposal would have on the image of Belfast city centre had been addressed in the report and assessed in light of the relevant LDP policy and the impact that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area.  She added that the issue of the cumulative build-up of amusement arcades in the city centre had also been addressed in the report and that the proposal would result in four amusement arcades within a five-minute walk or 200 metre radius, and that it had not been considered a proliferation, given the distance from the application site.

            The Principal Planning Officer explained that the potential impact the proposal would have on neighbouring properties, that included First Church had also been addressed in the report and that, in terms of concerns raised with regard to mental health and gambling addition, the proposal could only be assessed against relevant planning policies.

            She reported that the proposal complied with the LDP Plan Strategy and that it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

            The Chairperson welcomed Ms. D. Thompson, MBA Planning, to the meeting who was speaking in objection to the application, on behalf of First Church.

            Ms. Thompson explained that the Council’s Amusement Policy clearly set out that amusement arcades were not acceptable in the prime retail core and that approval of the proposal would cause a cluster of amusement arcades within a small area.

            She stated that the proposal would present a bad neighbour to First Church, that was much more than a place of worship, and that it was tourist and cultural hub for the city centre which played an active role it its community and religious life.

            She explained that the church was only 22 metres from the proposal site and that the church disagreed with the assertion that it would have no significant impact as gambling activities would jar with the religious, spiritual, cultural and tourism activities that were conducted within the church and associated grounds.

            She stated that amusement arcades raised unique planning issues and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and explained that Building Control did not consider arcades compatible with retailing and regenerations for the following reasons:

·        They had a narrow appeal and so low footfall;

·        It was highly questionable whether they add vitality to an area;

·        they did not provide active street frontage at ground level because their interior was screened; and

·        they did little to project an image that Belfast is open for business.

            She referred to the cumulative impact and stated that there were already 10 amusement centres in the city centre and pointed out inconsistencies between the Building Control Officer’s assessment and the Planning assessment.  She added that, if the applicant’s plan was to move their existing arcade in North Street, this had not been assessed and there was no mechanism to extinguish the old use which could result in two arcades in close proximity to the church.

            She concluded by asking the Committee to refuse the application and invited the applicant to find a unit away from the church and outside the prime retail core.

            The Chairperson thanked Ms. Thompson for her representation and welcomed Mr. W. Orbinson KC, Mr. S. Stranaghan, Mr. A Mains and Mr. B. McAllister, the applicant, to the meeting.

            Mr. Orbinson KC explained that the applicant welcomed the careful consideration given by the Planning officers and pointed out that the report confirmed that the proposal, which was a relocation from existing premises in North Street which had been forced by the redevelopment of the area, was acceptable in principle within the primary retail core, was policy compliant and would cause no harmful impacts.

            He stated that, by spending £200K on refurbishment of a vacant unit, the retention of eight jobs and increasing footfall, the proposal would support vibrancy.  He explained that expert consultees confirmed that it would cause no harm to the setting of the listed church or the character and appearance of the Conservation area.

            He stated that the Council’s Plan Strategy had primacy over the subsidiary Amusement Permit Policy and the SPG, quoted by those in objection to the application, and rather supported leisure development in the city centre, as part of a vibrant mix of uses and that policy RET1 directed that such uses to the core.

            He explained that the church had been co-existing for many years with other contrasting users and pointed out that a licensed social club which contained gaming machines and served food and alcohol on outdoor tables, opened from noon on Sundays.  He added that the proposed site had previously been an Ann Summers outlet, which had a very distinctive offering, however, co-existed with the church, and its tourism and cultural functions had flourished.

            He informed the Committee that the applicant’s intention was to open from noon on a Sunday, similar to the adjacent 3Cs Social Club, and that it would be after the 10.30am start of Sunday worship at the church.  He stated that, if necessary, the amenity of the church could be further protected by the amusement permit to control opening hours, however, the front façade and entrance, therefore the streetscape, would remain unchanged with the windows and doors obscured.

            Mr. Orbinson KC referred to the proposal’s proximity to other amusement arcades and asserted that it would not be a proliferation and that there was no other amusement arcade on Rosemary Street.  He explained that the Landlord of the applicant’s North Street unit had objected to the grant of a new lease on redevelopment grounds.

            He concluded by stating that the recent objection from Mr. E. Poots MLA added nothing to the church’s objection and was deserving of no greater weight, just because it came from an MLA and asked the Committee to approve the application.

            A number of Members raised concern with regard to the proposed frontage of the premises and highlighted a conflict between licensing and planning policies.  The Principal Planning Officer stated that in the context of Planning, the proposal was acceptable in principle and that in terms of amenity on future residents of the city centre, Environmental Health had not considered the proposal to have any harm on future residents.

            In response to Members’ queries with regard to proliferation, the Director of Planning and Building Control stated that the Policy SP3 of the LDP Plan Strategy relating to Improving Health and Wellbeing had not been dismissed and that it had been considered in the assessment of the proposal.  She pointed out that Building Control dealt with Licensing and not Planning and that both bodies assessed applications with a different regime and where there is a conflict, Planning had to be focussed on the land use issues.

The Chairperson put the officers’ recommendation to approve the application, subject to conditions, to the Committee and upon audible dissent, he called for a vote.  On a vote by show of hands, seven Members voted for the recommendation and eight against and it was declared lost.

Following further discussion, the Committee deferred consideration of the application in order that the policy concerns that it raised could be considered in more detail by officers and reported back.