Agenda item

The Director of Planning and Building Control explained that the application had previously been determined under delegated authority and that, whilst a Member had contacted the Planning Service in order to request that the application be referred to the Planning Committee to determine on the grounds that the application “would have a negative impact on street scene or on the amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties”, the request had not been confirmed with the Member and the application had proceeded to determination under delegated authority on 31st March, 2025.

            She pointed out that the Member’s request had been made out of time and that the matters raised were considered to have been addressed within the delegated report and conditions attached to the permission.  She added that any request by a Member to refer a delegated decision to the Committee was to be considered by the Strategic Director of Planning and Place who would determine whether the reasons given were material planning considerations and of sufficient importance for consideration by the Committee, and did not, therefore, automatically mean that an application was referred to the Committee.

            She reported that, in respect of application LA04/2023/4194/F, the issues which had been raised by the Member would have been material, however, the importance of the issues raised might not have warranted consideration by the Committee.

            She stated that, given that the request to have the application referred to the Committee was neither confirmed nor refused, the Committee should consider the following three courses of action:

1.     Members may consider that the decision taken under delegated authority is appropriate as all material considerations and representations to the application were considered before the decision was made. This decision would require no further action from the Council and the planning permission would remain;

2.     Members may consider that they may have determined the application differently if it had come before Committee. A decision could therefore be made to revoke the permission under S.68 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011. The Council would have to serve Notice on the land owner affected and they would have the opportunity to oppose the revocation. If they choose to oppose the revocation, then a hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Appeals Commission and there are costs implications for the Council and no guarantee that the Order will be granted; or

3.     Members may consider that the Council has not followed its own procedures and that they may have determined the application differently if it had come before Committee. A decision could therefore be made to apply to the High Court for Judicial Review seeking an order to quash the permission and return the application to the Council for fresh consideration. The Council would have to serve Notice on the applicant affected of the Council’s intention to seek to quash the permission and they may seek to challenge the Council’s application which would result in a hearing before the Judicial Review Court. There are costs implications and no guarantee that an Order quashing the permission would be granted.

The Director of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that, on foot of the missed request, officers had been considering how to ensure that the process for doing so was robust and were currently revising the internal procedures for Members to have an application referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

            The Principal Planning Officer summarised the Case Officer’s report for the Committee and she highlighted the side and front elevations that included an enclosed privacy wall and obscured glazed and non-opening windows which had been secured by conditions and would protect views.

            She stated that the application had been approved under delegated authority, subject to conditions, as it had been considered that the proposal had met the prevailing policies.

Proposal

Moved by Alderman Lawlor,

Seconded by Councillor Doran,

      “That the Committee revokes the permission under S.68 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.”

Amendment

Moved by Councillor Garrett,

Seconded by Councillor McCabe,

      “That the Committee is satisfied with the assessment of the application and the issuing of the permission, and that no further action is required.”

            On a vote, thirteen Members voted for the amendment and six against and it was declared carried, the amendment was thereupon put to the Committee as the substantive motion and passed.