Agenda item

            The Planning Manager explained that planning permission and Listed Building Consent had been granted by the Committee at its meeting in February, 2024 and issued in March, 2024, and that subsequently, a Pre-Action Protocol letter had been received on behalf of Ulster Architectural Heritage (UAH), dated 19th June, 2024.

 

            He pointed out to the Committee that UAH had not engaged with the original planning application process, nor had it submitted an objection to the applications.

 

            He reported that officers had examined the grounds of challenge as set out in the Pre - Action Protocol letter and accepted that, on balance, the Council’s decisions to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent should be quashed on the basis that the report presented to the Committee should have  been clearer that the building and structures proposed to be demolished at the rear were part of the Listed Building and how the relevant planning policy had been applied.

 

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

 

·        The principle of a hotel at this location;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;

·        Impact on the special architectural and historic qualities of the Listed Building;

·        Archaeology;

·        Ancillary open space;

·        Climate change;

·        Traffic, movement and parking;

·        Environmental impacts;

·        Drainage and flood risk; and

·        Natural heritage.

 

            He outlined the most recent advice from DfC Historic Environment Division (HED) in which it advised that, if nothing was done, the front/main building could eventually be lost completely, and quickly.

 

 

            He outlined the objection from UAH which had been submitted earlier that day, as set out below:

 

            Conflict with Policy BH1

 

That the Committee report failed to give appropriate weight to Policy BH1 and presumption in favour of retaining Listed Buildings, that there were no exceptional reasons why the Listed Building could not be retained in its original, or a reasonably modified form.

 

            He advised that the Committee report clearly set out the exceptional reasons as to why part of the Listed Building should be demolished, and that the Committee report failed to address or give appropriate weight to the following:

 

·        the importance of the building;

·        the particular features of the building;

·        the setting of the building and its contribution to the area;

·        the extent to which the proposal would bring substantial benefits to the community;

·        evidence that reasonable efforts had been made to sustain existing uses or find viable alternative ones;

·        whether the proposal would provide substantial community benefits that would decisively outweigh the loss from demolition;

·        consent would not simply be given because redevelopment was economically more attractive to the developer;

·        the condition of the building and the cost of repair, as against the importance of the building and value derived from its continued use; and

·        the Council should be satisfied that genuine attempts to find alternative uses had been made and with the merits of the alternative proposal.

 

            He referred to the Committee report and addressed the relevant points.  He advised that the condition of the building was plainly clear and pointed to the building having been vacant since 2000 and the importance of the various parts of the building had been made clear in the report and the officer presentation.

 

            He stated that the proposal would bring about substantial community benefits in securing the restoration and long-term future of the main Listed Building, investment and job creation.

 

            Conflict with Policy BH2

 

·        Failed to give reasons for departure from Conservation advice;

·        No provision for the recording of the building; and

·        HED failed to have regard to Policy BH2.

 

            The Planning Manager referred to the Committee report which clearly set out the assessment of the proposal against relevant conservation area policies and advised that a condition would be included to require the recording of the building prior to demolition.  He reported that HED’s prime remit was consideration of the impacts on the Listed Building and not the conservation area.

 

            Conflict with Policies DES1 and DES3

 

            Conflict with DM Practice Note 5: Historic Environment:

 

·        Failure to consider that the entire building is Listed; and

·        Failure to consider the relevant caselaw (UAH v DoE NI NIQB 21 2014).

 

            The Planning Manager referred to the Committee report and stated that it had made clear the extent of the Listed Building, and to the case law and how the current proposal differed from that case.

 

            Conflict with the SPPS

 

            He referred to the assessment of policy in the Committee report.

 

            Other issues as raised in its Judicial Review of the original decisions.

 

·        Contrary to the provisions of the Act;

·        Inadequate consultation;

·        Incorrect descriptions of the proposal;

·        Failure to carry out an EIA; and

·        Failure to address climate changes policies and objectives.

 

            He confirmed that the recommendation was not in conflict with the above points and that climate change planning policies had been addressed in the Committee report.

 

            The Planning Manager confirmed that UAH had not been notified that the applications were to be reported back to the Committee following the quashing of the original decisions as a matter of courtesy, and that UAH had not been formally re-consulted.  He reported that the status of the applications had yet to be updated on the NI Planning Portal but that this was not relevant to the Committee’s consideration of the applications. He advised that there had been no requirement to reconsult or re-advertise the application and that procedural requirements had been followed.

 

            He explained that the proposed demolition must be viewed in the context of the architectural and historic merits of those parts of the Listed Building to be demolished, previous planning applications, that the building has been vacant since 2000, its condition and presence on the Buildings at Risk Register, HED's advice and that the proposal would ensure the restoration and long-term future of this part of the Listed Building at the front.

 

            He stated that, having regard to these factors, it was considered that there were exceptional reasons as to why the demolition of the Listed structures at the rear was acceptable with the demolition required to the facilitate the important redevelopment proposals.

 

            He added that regard has also been had to the legislative requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and that the proposal had been considered to be compliant with Policy BH1 and relevant provisions of the SPPS.

 

            He stated that, having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission and Listed Building Consent were granted.

 

            The Chairperson put the recommendation to the Committee and, upon audible dissent, called for a vote, when fifteen Members voted for the recommendation and one against and it was declared carried.

 

            Accordingly, 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 conditions and to deal with any other matters that arise, provided that they were not substantive.

 

(Councillor T. Brooks returned to the meeting.)