Belfast City Council Health and Environmental Services Committee Minutes 19 January 2005

From Nigov

F2595

Health and Environmental Services Committee

Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

SPECIAL MEETING OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Members present: Councillor J. Clarke (Chairman); and Councillors M. Clarke, Convery, Crowe, Hanna, McCann, Patterson, O’Reilly and H. Smyth.

In attendance: Mr. W. Francey, Director of Health and Environmental Services; Mr. T. Martin, Head of Building Control; and Miss L. Hillick, Committee Administrator.

Building Control

Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 – Proposed Amendment to Part F: Conservation of Fuel and Power Consultation Document

The Committee considered the undernoted report in relation to the above-mentioned Consultation Document:

“1. Purpose of Report

To inform Members of the consultation on the proposed amendments of Part F: Conservation of Fuel and Power, Technical Booklets F1 Conservation of Fuel and Power for Dwellings and Technical Booklet F2 Conservation of Fuel and Power for Buildings Other Than Dwellings of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.

2. Background

The Building Regulations (NI) 2000 are made by the Department of Finance and Personnel and administered by Councils through their Building Control Services. They apply to virtually all building work and involve the Service in checking the design and construction of such works. In addition to conservation of fuel and power and making provision for people with disabilities, their main function is to ensure the health and safety of people in or around buildings.

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2596 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

These proposed amendments are driven by a global and, in particular, European recognition that unless action is taken now to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere, develop and utilise alternative forms of sustainable energies, the environment may be irreparably damaged for future generations.

The last substantive review of the Part F: Conservation of Fuel and Power regulations took place in 1994 coming into operation in November 1994. Since then there have been some minor amendments made to the supporting Technical Booklets in 1998 and 2000, but no substantive change.

The proposed changes to the regulations in this Consultation Document fall into the following main categories:-

• Giving visible recognition of the aim for European harmonization of approach to reduction of green house gases and the drive to achieve conservation of fuel and power through a more controlled and holistic approach to entire buildings, whether new or existing.

• Drive changes in design approach, construction practices, systems installation, commissioning, maintenance and servicing to ensure not only a minimum energy performance standard set for new dwellings and buildings other than dwellings. The flexibility of the proposed compliance methods is constrained by a series of poorest acceptable benchmarks for the principal building fabric and the heating, cooling and lighting services.

• It is proposed to make pressure testing (to ensure reasonable airtightness and act as a useful indicator for general construction quality) a legal requirement for new buildings and dwellings.

• Amplification/Simplification of provisions on which the Department had been asked for clarification, and

• Updating to take account of changes to British Standards, the Governments Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP 2005 edition) and other references.

The consultation gives the opportunity to comment on the relatively new format of the draft Technical Booklets comprising of 2 separate documents reflecting the split between dwellings on the one hand and buildings other than dwellings on the other to aid understanding and diminish any possible confusion.

Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Wednesday, 19th January, 2005 2597

A copy of the proposed response is included as an appendix to this report.

3. Environmental Implications

The Building Regulations although primarily aimed at health and safety of people in or around buildings also play a significant role in energy conservation. Part F of the Building Regulations (NI) gives the minimum requirements for the conservation of fuel and power that must be achieved for building works in Northern Ireland. The current requirements came into effect in April 1999 and at that time matched those in the rest of the UK. The proposals in the Consultation Document if implemented lead to an improvement in the energy efficiency of new buildings and hence a reduction in the carbon emissions they would otherwise produce of more than 30%. Principal features in the proposals include setting performance standards for the whole building rather than for construction and services elements (in line with the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive) and to introduce pre-completion testing of airtightness.

Improvements to a lesser scale would also be obtained whenever work is carried out on existing buildings. These improvements would come into effect in 2005 in line with the commitment in the Energy White Paper and lead to a reduction in Northern Ireland of around 59,625 tonnes of carbon per year in 2010.

4. Equality Implications

There are no relevant equality implications.

5. Decision Required

To consider the Consultation Document on the review of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000- Proposed Amendment to Part F: Conservation of Fuel and Power and make representations to the Department of Finance and Personnel.”

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2598 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

“Appendix 1

Draft Response

The Building Regulations

Part F: Conservation of Fuel and Power

Overall Strategy

1 The Energy White Paper (EWP) and Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) effectively call for Part F to be reviewed at 5-yearly intervals. Do you consider this is a reasonable and effective way to meet our climate change policy objectives? Yes: X No: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Whilst a five year review would be welcomed, it is important that any approach to change be tempered with the practical ability of the associated professions to adapt to such important and high impact changes.

2 The Draft Technical Booklets for Part F comprise of 2 separate documents reflecting the split between dwellings on the one hand and buildings other than dwellings on the other. Do you like this separation? Yes: X No: 0 No view 0

Commentary: It will clarify the approach for both new and existing projects to both new and existing dwellings and also new and existing buildings other than dwellings

3 The Draft Technical Booklets adopt a more strategic approach to the deemed-to-satisfy provisions, relying on other approved references for much of the technical detail. Do you like this approach? Yes: X No: 0 No view 0

Commentary: The key question here is – will all those documents, software and approved references be available before formal introduction of the proposed changes?

Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Wednesday, 19th January, 2005 2599

Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) 4 Do you consider the proposal for more than a 30% reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from any new dwelling or commercial building an appropriate and practical target for 2005? Yes: 0 No: X No view 0

Commentary: The industry must be allowed a transition period for the changes. By the very nature of Applications to Local Councils, all those submitted before the date of introduction of the regulatory changes, have a 3 year lifespan to be built to a lesser standard than that imposed by the changes.

5 Are the cost and benefit data and methods of analysis given in the RIA reasonable? Please use the comment box to suggest how the estimates and methods of analysis could be improved. Agree: 0 Disagree: X No view 0

Commentary: The data should make a more accurate allowance for the cost differential for Northern Ireland due to the higher cost of living, availability of fuel choice and limited design approvals by the planning authorities which can stifle innovation.

6 Do you consider that any particular sector of the market or industry is likely to be disproportionately affected by the proposed changes? If so, please explain how. Yes: 0 X No: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Due to the increased ‘testing’ and control of ‘systems’ and performance standards, it is likely that a substantial proportion of this cost will be borne by the Client/Developer and this will particularly have an added impact of refurbishment as this area is normally more expensive than new build and VAT is not reclaimable for this type of work

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2600 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

7 Will the existing building control system be able to enforce the proposed changes? If not, please make suggestions and observations on what could be done to improve enforcement and/or relieve the regulatory burden. Yes: X No: 0 No view 0

Commentary: However this will require a substantial resource investment on the part of local authorities. This is particularly important in the area of independent third party validation of performance and standards rather than go down the road of self certification, which has been evidenced in a number of catastrophes world wide.

Technical Booklet F 1: Part 1: New Dwellings 8 Are you content with the proposed new provision in TB F1 regarding the submission of the target carbon dioxide emissions for each new dwelling? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Yes, providing that those ‘unknowns’ referred to in the proposals do not have a major impact on the final outcome and make the targets impracticable to achieve.

9 Are you content with the new seven-step approach to determining compliance for new dwellings? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Yes, easily understood and followed.

10 Are you content with the alternative proposals for dealing with terraced dwellings and blocks of flats? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: This encourages flexibility to achieve ‘total’ compliance rather than find ways of falling short of the target emissions.

Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Wednesday, 19th January, 2005 2601

11 Are you content with the proposals for a minimum building envelope standard and minimum acceptable standards for building services systems? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: This is a must if we aim to make substantial reductions in carbon emissions.

12 Are you content with the proposals for achieving satisfactory quality of construction, namely robust details and sample pressure testing? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: One concern may be that whilst some robust details achieve thermal insulation levels, they may not comply with sound reduction levels and care should be taken when using particular details in specific locations.

13 Are you content with the model designs approach and the examples given in Appendix B? Content: 0 Disagree: X No view 0

Commentary: There should be more in depth and explicit explanations of the figures used and in this day and age, schematic elevations and floor layouts would help understanding.

14 Are you content with the approach set out in the checklist in Appendix A? (Your thoughts on making this checklist more useful would also be welcome.) Content: 0 Disagree: X No view 0

Commentary: The need for Registered Sap assessors (SAP 2005) might be difficult to accommodate initially but would be essential if we are to raise the ‘profile’ on ‘Energy Performance and Rating’

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2602 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

15 This box is provided to enable you to comment on specific paragraphs in the Technical Booklet and the questions included in the commentary column. Please give the paragraph No and question No to which you are responding. (Those responding in manuscript or in a separate document are requested to refer to this question No and to copy this layout.) Paragraph or Question No.

Response None Technical Booklet F 1: Part 2: Building work to existing dwellings 16 Are you content with the proposed new requirement in Regulation F2 regarding the submission of energy performance statements? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: There may initially be a shortage of Competent persons. This may also be impracticable to enforce as a lot of Local Authority work is minor alterations and extension to peoples own homes (not professionally supervised. It also flies in the face of ‘Building Notices Applications’ which were meant top simplify application and inspection.

17 Are you content with the proposal that permits a trade-off on the general energy efficiency of the existing dwellings whenever it is impractical to achieve the new standard in alteration works to the existing building (Section 2 and the new work definition of controlled element)? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Generally agreeable, but we feel that a more simple and pragmatic ‘elemental’ approach to domestic extensions coupled with a simple requirement to revisit the performance of the rest of the dwelling and systems would be easier understood by the general public and small builders.

18 Do you consider the overall level of improvements proposed for existing buildings to be reasonable? (Please comment on factors affecting your view.) Yes: X No: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Wednesday, 19th January, 2005 2603

19 This box is provided to enable you to comment on specific paragraphs in the AD and the questions included in the commentary column. Please give the paragraph No and question No to which you are responding. (Those responding in manuscript or in a separate document are requested to refer to this question No and to copy this layout.) Paragraph or Question No.

Response NONE Technical Booklet F 2: Part 1: New buildings other than dwellings 20 Are you content with the proposed new requirement F 5 covering limiting solar overheating? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Essential in todays aims.

21 Are you content with the proposed new requirement F 3 concerning the provision of cost-effective low and zero carbon systems? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Only if this encourages new design and a lot more flexibility with Planning Permissions

22 Are you content with the proposed new provisions in Steps 6 and 7 of TB F2 concerning the calculation of As-Built energy performance, testing of airtightness and reporting commissioning results? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

23 Are you content with the proposal for a new Building Regulation F13 on submitting an Energy Performance Certificates as the best way of implementing Article 7 of the EPB Directive (or would you prefer some other legislative route)? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2604 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

24 Are you content with the proposal for a new Building Regulation F 15 on regular inspections of air conditioning systems as the best way of implementing Article 9 of the EPB Directive (or would you prefer some other legislative route)? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: However, this will have a major resource impact on local authorities.

25 Are you content with the proposed new requirement in Regulation F 2 regarding the submission of target carbon performance? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

26 Are you content with the seven-step approach together with the data in Appendix B as the way of showing compliance? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

27 Are you content with the proposals for Minimum Permissible standards? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

28 Are you content with the proposals for achieving satisfactory quality of construction, namely reports from person competent to do so, pressure testing except in special cases, and pressure testing of ductwork? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Providing an agreed percentage is witnessed by a Local Authority Officer

29 Are you content with the model designs approach in Section 2? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Wednesday, 19th January, 2005 2605

30 Are you content with the definitions in Section 3? Content: 0 Disagree: X No view 0

Commentary: Similar alignment to existing Purposes Group definitions would make more sense.

31 Are you content with the approach set out in the checklist in Appendix A? (Your thoughts on making this checklist more useful would also be welcome.) Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: Providing all documentation referenced, software and training are in place before implementation

32 Are you content with the examples in Appendix C on the use of the new seven-step approach? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary: A wider range of more explicitly explained examples are necessary relative to Northern Ireland

33 This box is provided to enable you to comment on specific paragraphs in the AD and the questions included in the commentary column. Please give the paragraph No and question No to which you are responding. (Those responding in manuscript or in a separate document are requested to refer to this question No and to copy this layout.) Paragraph or Question No.

Response None Technical Booklet F 2: Part 2: Building work to existing buildings other than dwellings 35 Are you content with the proposed new requirement in Regulation F 2 regarding the submission of energy performance statements? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2606 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

36 Do you consider the overall level of improvements proposed for existing buildings to be reasonable? Please comment on factors affecting your view. Yes: X No: 0 No view 0

Commentary: This might be too onerous in small works.

37 Are you content with the proposal to treat extensions over 100 m2 floor area as new are reasonable? Content: X Disagree: 0 No view 0

Commentary:

38 This box is provided to enable you to comment on specific paragraphs in the AD and the questions included in the commentary column. Please give the paragraph No and question No to which you are responding. (Those responding in manuscript or in a separate document are requested to refer to this question No and to copy this layout.) Paragraph or Question No.

Response None

General suggestions and observations 39 Please enter below any other suggestions or observations that you have that do not fit into the preceding format. Commentary: The proposed amendments will have a major impact on the commercial and domestic sectors of the industry and will require planned explicit and specific training and communication exercises to be carried out. They cannot be simply introduced on a date and then Local Authorities are left to answer all questions from those design professionals that will barrage our service. There is current experience in England & Wales which have had most of the proposed changes in operation for approximately two years. This must be used to advise and instruct our own Local Authorities in the best practice and methods to help introduce and implement the proposed changes as smoothly as possible locally.”

The Committee adopted the comments contained in Appendix 1 of the foregoing report as the Council’s official response to the consultation exercise.

Application for the Grant of an Amusement Permit where Objections had been Received

Loughside Service Station – 809 Shore Road

The Committee considered a report in relation to the grant of an Amusement Permit in respect of premises located at the Loughside Service Station, 809 Shore Road. A copy of the report, with the exception of the appendices referred to therein, is set out hereunder:

“1. Purpose of Report

To consider, under Articles 109 -121 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, the application by Mr Gordon Rush for the Grant of an Amusement Permit in respect of premises at 809 Shore Road.

2. Background

You agreed, at your meeting of 10th January, 2005, that a special meeting be held to hear representations from the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the applicant and/or his representative in relation to the application for the grant of the Amusement Permit.

The area of the premises intended to be licensed to provide amusement by means of gaming machines is the ground floor.

Written representation objecting to the application has been received from the PSNI. The nature of the representation is that:

• On 16 June 2003 police officers seized 10 gaming machines from the premises as it was established Mr Rush was operating without a permit;

• Since the seizure of these machines and the closure of this illegal arcade local police have noticed a distinct improvement in the number of crimes and anti-social behaviour problems that occur in the area;

• The granting of an amusement permit will encourage youths to gather in the area; and

• The Community and local police also have the fear that premises such as these, where youths congregate with money in their pockets, would also be a magnet for local drug dealers who would try and manipulate the premises for their own purposes.

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2608 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

3. Proposal

The application relates to the grant of an Amusement Permit for gaming by means of gaming machines in the aforementioned premises.

No opening hours have been specified on the application, Members may wish to ascertain the hours the applicant intends to open.

For your information the following supporting documents are contained in the Appendix to this Report:-

• Application form • Location map • PSNI comments • Applicant references • Planning Permission for the proposed amusement arcade

4. Environmental Implications

Members may wish to consider whether the use of the premises for an amusement arcade will impact positively, negatively or neutrally on the existing built environment of the area and the reasons therefor.

Members will note that the Planning Service has granted planning permission for an amusement arcade.

In an important Court of Appeal decision in June 1999 it was confirmed that the Council, in determining applications for amusement permits, may take into account planning considerations but should be slow to differ from the views of the Planning Authority.

The Court also confirmed that the Council can take into account matters such as location, structure, character and impact on neighbours and the surrounding area.

5. Equality Implications

There are no equality implications associated with this report.

6. Resources

There are no resource implications associated with this report.

Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Wednesday, 19th January, 2005 2609

7. Decision Required

The current policy, dictated by the governing Order is that the Committee, in considering the application, shall have regard to:

1. the fitness of the applicant to hold a permit having regard to his character, reputation and financial standing,

2. the fitness of any other person by whom the business to be carried on under the permit would be managed, or for whose benefit that business would be carried on,

3. representation, if any, from the sub-divisional commander of the PSNI in whose sub-division the premises are situated.

From submissions presented including you are therefore required to make a recommendation based on the following options set out under the Order.

The Council:-

1. Shall refuse the application, unless satisfied that:

(i) the applicant is a fit person to hold an amusement permit; and

(ii) the applicant will not allow the business proposed to be carried on under the amusement permit to be managed by, or carried on for the benefit of, a person other than the applicant who would himself be refused the provisional grant of an amusement permit, or

2. May refuse the application after hearing any representations from third parties, or

3. Shall grant the application, subject to the mandatory condition that the premises are not to be used for an unlawful purpose or as a resort of persons of known bad character, or

4. May grant the application subject to the discretionary conditions as stated in Article 111(6)(b) of the Order relating to illumination of the premises, advertising of, and window displays on the premises and the display of information notices.

F Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, 2610 Wednesday, 19th January, 2005

Should you be of a mind to make a recommendation that the Council :-

(a) refuse to grant a permit, or

(b) grant a permit subject to any condition other than the mandatory condition mentioned in 3,

you are required to pass a motion recommending to the Council that it advises the applicant of its intention to refuse the application. The motion should further state that before making a final decision in the matter the Council should afford the applicant the opportunity to make representations to the Council on why the application should not be refused. The motion should also recommend to the Council that this opportunity should be afforded to the applicant at a specified Council meeting following which it is recommended that the Council make a determination of the application.

If the Council, subsequent to hearing the applicant, decides to refuse the application or grants the application subject to conditions specified under Article 111(6)(b) the applicant may appeal that decision to the County Court.”

It was reported that Inspector H. Brady and Sergeant J. Russell, representing the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the objectors to the application, were in attendance and they were admitted to the meeting and welcomed by the Chairman (Councillor J. Clarke).

Sergeant Russell advised the Committee that, on 16th June, 2003, police officers had searched the Loughside Service Station and had seized a total of ten illegal gaming machines from the premises. It had been established that the applicant, Mr. Rush, had been operating the machines without a gaming licence. Subsequently, he had admitted the offences and received an official police caution. Sergeant Russell pointed out that, since the seizure of these machines and the subsequent closure of this illegal gaming arcade, the police had noticed a distinct improvement in the number of crimes and anti-social behaviour related offences which had been occurring within the vicinity of the Service Station.

He advised the Committee that the local residents of Shore Crescent, a small estate which was situated directly behind the Service Station, had reported also an improvement in the general behaviour of the youths in the area.

Sergeant Russell pointed out that the applicant was under the misapprehension that he was providing a community service by offering a facility which would remove young persons and youths from the streets. He reported that community representatives and local police feared that premises such as this, where youths congregated, would attract also local drug dealers and that gaming and gambling activities would also encourage the committing of other crimes. Sergeant Russell reported that the police had consulted with local residents of the area who had concurred with their view that the Amusement Permit should not be granted.

Special Health and Environmental Services Committee, F Wednesday, 19th January, 2005 2611

After discussion, during which the representatives of the Police Service of Northern Ireland answered various questions which were put to them by the Members, the deputation thanked the Committee for receiving them and they retired from the meeting.

Mr. Rush was admitted to the meeting and the objections in respect of the application were outlined to him. Mr. Rush reported that he had had contact with many local residents who had indicated that they had not been consulted in relation to this matter. He pointed out that he was surprised by many of the objections which had been put forward by the police and stated that he had co-operated with them in relation to the implementation of their anti-drugs campaign.

In relation to the allegation that he had been operating an illegal arcade, Mr. Rush informed the Committee that he had had various difficulties with the Planning Service in obtaining a certificate of lawfulness for the use of the premises as a gaming arcade and that the previous Amusement Permit, which had been held by his uncle, had lapsed when he had died.

Mr. Rush reported that he employed a number of local residents at the Service Station and that it was envisaged that only persons above the age of sixteen years would use the machines at the premises.

In response to the police’s objection that the machines would attract large groups of youths, Mr. Rush pointed out that it was the siting of a local off-licence within the vicinity of the Service Station which attracted groups of youths.

In response to a Member’s question, Mr. Rush stated that the Service Station closed not later than 9.00 p.m. in the evenings and that the maximum payout from machines operating on the premises would be £8.00.

Mr. Rush then thanked the Committee for receiving him and he retired from the meeting.

After discussion, during which several Members pointed out that Mr. Rush and the Police were of the view that they had the local community’s backing for their respective cases in relation to the granting of the Amusement Permit, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the matter to enable further information in this regard to be obtained.

Application for the Renewal of an Entertainments Licence where Objections had been Received

Cumann Na Meirleach Poblachtach Eireannach – 537 Falls Road

The Committee considered a report, copies of which had previously been circulated, in relation to an application for the renewal of a Seven-Day Annual Entertainments Licence in respect of the above-mentioned premises.

It was reported that, immediately prior to the commencement of the meeting, the applicant and the objector had reached an agreement that the premises would be monitored for a three-month period.

After discussion, the Committee agreed that the renewal of the Entertainments Licence in respect of the above-mentioned premises be deferred for a period of three months to enable monitoring of the premises to be carried out by officers within the Building Control Service and for discussions to be held between the applicant, the objector and Elected Representatives.

Chairman