Retention of a shipping container at Sideburns Barber Lounge Carryduff Business Park, Carryduff

Retaining a container used as a hairdressers

The application sought retention of an existing shipping container used as a hairdressers at a business park in Carryduff.

“LA05/2025/0539/F – Retention of existing container for hairdressers at Sideburns Barber Lounge, Carryduff Business Park, Comber Road, Carryduff…”

Minutes

Supporters addressed the committee

Representatives of the business spoke in support of the application and members' queries were addressed.

Members disagreed with officers' recommendation

Several members said the sequential and employment land tests had been met and that the loss of two parking spaces was not significant, and said they would vote against refusal.

“Alderman M Gregg expressed a concern with the safety of the electrical supply to the building. Alderman Gregg advised that he felt the sequential test of policy TC1 had been met and that the alternative properties identified by Officers were not suitable, and loss of employment land was not applicable as the only loss was two car parking spaces on a site with ample parking spaces available.”

“Councillor Trimble continued that in his opinion it would be extremely difficult to find a similar sized property in Carryduff town centre that would be suitable for the needs of the business and agreed with Alderman O Gawith’s statement that policy ED7 did not apply as the site was only two car parking spaces.”

Minutes

Clarifying a disputed planning policy

Officers clarified that a further employment land policy had not been fully examined and could allow an exception for ancillary retail development.

“The Chair, Alderman J Tinsley asked the Head of Planning and Capital Development for some clarity on Councillor N Trimbles point that it could be deemed a temporary structure but that permanent permission was being sought from the applicant, and if Members had sufficiently engaged with policy if they were to vote against the recommendation of the Officers.”

“Head of Planning and Capital Development advised that Members could defer the application and request further clarity on the point. Alderman M Gregg advised that he felt the building could qualify for the exception in policy ED7 and be deemed ancillary in nature, and that should Members vote against the recommendation of Officers, a condition could be added to the planning permission stating that should any alterations to the structure be required, including removal, new…”

Minutes

The refusal recommendation fell

The vote to adopt officers' recommendation to refuse planning permission fell, with 1 member in favour, 4 against and 4 abstaining.

“On a vote being taken, it was agreed not to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Officer to refuse planning permission, the voting being:”

“Against: Councillor P Catney, Alderman A Gawith, Alderman M Gregg, and Councillor G Thompson (4)”

Minutes

A new proposal to approve was carried

A new proposal to approve the application was then put to the committee and carried 4 votes to 3, with 2 abstentions.

“Given that the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission had fallen, the Chair, Alderman J Tinsley, stated that a new proposal was required. It was proposed by Alderman M Gregg and seconded by Councillor P Catney that planning application LA05/2025/0539/F be approved.”

“The proposal by Alderman M Gregg, seconded by Councillor P Catney was put to the committee and, on a vote being taken, agreed that the application be approved, the voting being as follows:”

Minutes

Why the committee approved the container

Members said the sequential test under the town centre policy had been met and that the alternative premises identified by officers were not suitable.

“In agreeing to approve the application, the following reasons were offered:”

“In respect of policy TC1 the sequential test had been met for the property, including that the Saintfield Road was just 300 metres away and was a main bus route. The alternative premises identified by Officers were not suitable and failed the sequential test of policy TC1.”

Minutes