ABC Council has backed a notice of motion calling for a specific planning policy to combat the “continued proliferation” of HMOs across the borough.
The motion had been brought to the April full sitting of council by the DUP, seeking recognition that the “concentration” in terms of numbers of HMOs was “having a detrimental impact on the residential character of affected areas and is placing increasing pressure on local amenity and infrastructure”.
Such a policy, the DUP says, would limit the number of HMOs in any given area and meant there was no longer a case off ’sandwiching’, where a property could have them built either side.
The motion – addressing the “proliferation of houses in multiple occupation” – read that “this council expresses alarm at the proliferation and concentration of houses in multiple occupation, HMOs, throughout Armagh City, Banbridge, and Craigavon, and in particular, the disproportionately high number located in Portadown.
“Council recognises that this concentration is having a detrimental impact on the residential character of affected areas and is placing increasing pressure on local amenity and infrastructure.
“Council notes that the Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (NI) 2016, provides councils with a statutory over-provision test, requiring regard to be given to the number of HMOs already in a locality when considering applications. Council, further notes recent statements by the Communities Minister, highlighting that council should be exercising these powers fully, including the introduction of specific local policies to manage HMO provision and, where appropriate, setting of limits on concentration.
“Council is concerned that, in the absence of a bespoke local policy framework for HMOs, there is a risk that the cumulative impact of HMO development is not being adequately addressed within the borough. Accordingly, council calls for the urgent development and adoption of a specific local planning policy for HMOs to be brought forward through the local development plan process to provide a clear and robust framework for assessing scale, concentration and cumulative impact, including consideration of thresholds or limits were appropriate.”
The Alliance Party had sought to bring an amendment but on a vote this did not pass.
It was DUP Councillor Kyle Moutray who presented the motion “out of growing concern”, pointing to a “continued proliferation of houses in multiple occupation”.
He told Monday’s meeting: “In Portadown alone, there are 38 licensed HMOs. That represents 65% of the total number across the entire borough, with a further six applications being granted approval through delegated authority in the last year alone. On one street alone in Portadown there are 14 HMOs.
“These figures represent a clear shift in how those areas function and how they’re experienced by residents. And questions deserve to be asked of council. What controls are in place and are we doing enough to protect local communities from this sudden change in character? I believe that we have reached a point where the cumulative impact of this proliferation can no longer be ignored.
“In so many cases, residents are telling us about the erosion of residential character, increased pressures on local services and a growing sense that their communities are changing in ways that they were never properly planned for.
“And when councillors consider applications at committee, they are often forced to look at them in isolation on a case by case basis, without a clear framework, to assess the wider cumulative effect.”
That, said Councillor Moutray, was the gap his motion sought to address.
“As a council, we already have powers available to us,” he continued. “The Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (NI) 2016 includes an over-provision test requiring regard to be given to the number of HMOs in each locality. More recently, the Communities Minister Gordon Lyons has made it clear that councils should be going further and that we should now be developing our own specific policies to manage HMO provision. This includes setting limits on concentration where it’s appropriate.
“He has also highlighted that some councils have not exercised these powers to their fullest extent, or not at all. I, along with other members, have been calling for an HMO specific policy since December 2023. That was within a month of me actually becoming a councillor, and that’s how long this topic has been debated.
“There is a clear policy vacuum within this council and already we are seeing other councils take this matter seriously. Just last month, Derry City and Strabane Council, who already have specific guidance on HMOs, unanimously approved a proposal to engage with DfI in order to change the interim threshold on HMOs from 30% to 10% and as soon as practicably possible.
“So the question for us today is simple. Are we content to remain without a clear local policy framework for HMOs? Or do we take responsibility for addressing an issue that is clearly affecting parts of our borough? Because without a bespoke HMO policy, we are left making decisions on a case by case basis, without the tools to properly consider things like scale, concentration or the cumulative impact.
“It’s about ensuring that when HMOs are considered, regard is given to ensuring they are in appropriate places, and at appropriate levels, and in a way that protects the character and balance of our communities.”
Councillor Moutray sought support for the “urgent development of a specific local planning policy for HMOs to be brought forward through our local development plan process”.
“Fundamentally, this is about giving ourselves the framework that we need to make better, more informed, consistent decisions,” he added.
The notion of motion was seconded by party colleague, Councillor Lavelle McIlwrath, who said the issue with planning, approval and licensing of HMOs “continues to stir much debate across most of the councils here in Northern Ireland”.
But he added: “It’s certainly not a new issue for this council, in particular, the Portadown area. As far back as late 2021 and early 2022, I was relaying concerns to planners about a proliferation of HMO applications in the Thomas Street area of Portadown.
“When I spoke at planning committee as an objector, I was constantly faced with the same reaction. We don’t have a policy, but we’re working on it. That was over four years ago. Today, we’re no further forward in terms of a policy.”
Referencing again the statistics for Portadown, the DUP man continued: “Make no mistake, developers are making hay while the sun shines and, from their perspective, why not? Unfortunately, we’ve allowed clustering of HMOs. We’ve also permitted sandwiching, where in at least one circumstance, an elderly lady’s home is sandwiched between two HMOs.
“It doesn’t matter whether it’s Portadown, Lurgan, Banbridge, or wherever, we need a policy that meets the needs of the area, but not one that demonstrably changes it. We need a policy that has area-based threshold at its heart, similar to the new Derry and Strabane model, supported by a policy on separation distances. Taken together, these two criteria will mitigate against clustering and sandwiching of HMOs, and will allow the decision-making process to be made on a quantitative basis, not simply on a case by case judgement.”
Councillor McIlwrath said the planning policy around HMOs in the ABC Council, area “needs to be reviewed and a new policy brought forward”, adding: “That was my view in 2021 and it is even more relevant today.”
TUV Councillor Keith Ratcliffe offered his support.
While he said HMOS are “vital in meeting housing demand, particularly for students, young professionals and low income households,”, this “must never come at the expense of safety, quality or community cohesion”.
“Too often,” said Councillor Ratcliffe, “HMOs fall short. Overcrowding, poor maintenance and inadequate fire safety and anti-social behaviour are recurring issues. They are not minor failings. They pose real risk to life and must be treated as urgency.
“We must ensure properties are properly maintained, meet minimum standards and have functioning safety measures.
“At the same time, HMOs must work, not only for landlords and tenants, but for the wider community. High concentrations of HMOs can strain neighbourhoods, leading to noise, parking issues, waste problems and less stable communities. Strong, connected neighbourhoods require balance, not over-saturation.
“This motion addresses that need. It supports the use of existing legislation to provide over-provision, strengthen enforcement and hold non-compliant landlords accountable by recognising those who operate responsibly. Ultimately, this is about responsibility, ensuring safety, ensuring standards and protecting communities’ well being. These are real concerns raised by residents, tenants and organisations and it is our duty as a council to act.”
Sinn Fein Councillor Kevin Savage said he believed the motion was something which his party grouping could support.
He agreed there was an “over-concentration” of HMOs in the Portadown area, with 38, while 54 across the borough as a whole, although there was “a long way to go before we get anywhere near Belfast, where there are nearly 3,000”.
Councillor Savage believed it was “important” that the council have “the power to make decisions that affect the character and make up of where we live”.
But he agreed that HMOS “do have an important role to play”.
“They do fill a need, particularly for students,” added Councillor Savage. “ But importantly, they do help people who are on low incomes and benefits as well, and, indeed, people who are under the age of 35 are only entitled to an accommodation rate at the shared amount. So they do have a place, but at the same time, we do know there has been issues around the borough and, indeed, any type of housing tenure, if there’s an over-concentration of it, it does have the potential to cause problems and change the neighbourhood that they’re actually in.
“ But there’s also an incumbency on landlords who own these buildings to take proper charge of them and to maintain them in a proper standard and, indeed, manage them to the letter of the law, and that’s not happening. The council does have substantial enforcement powers in relation to landlords. I had a quick look at the figures earlier in relation to enforcement against landlords, and it’s not great anywhere in terms of taking action against them.
“So that is something that we can do, ensure that landlords are held responsible and that their pursuit of profit isn’t put ahead of the lives of our residents across the borough. So if the intention of this motion is to develop positive policies that improve the quality of lives of our residents, we will support. We’ll work with all the parties in the development of this.”
Alliance Councillor Peter Lavery said the council was in the process of developing an HMO policy which was due to be published in around two months time.
“I think, as part of that policy, there is a threshold proposed of around 10% for a street,” he said. “There is a proposal to make sure that two HMOs cannot be side by side and in that a proposal where there cannot be sandwiching.”
Added Councillor Lavery: “Officers do provide recommendations to committee and some of the HMO applications are being recommended for approval. I think there’s only one which officers have recommended for refusal which was then called in by an elected member and overturned at committee.”
Accepting that it was “appropriate” to have an HMO policy in place, the Alliance representative believed the language used in part of the motion was “a wee bit inflammatory”.
He asked that it be amended to read that the “council notes the concentration of houses of multiple occupation throughout ABC and in particular disportionately high number located in Portadown” and that “council recognises that the residential character of local areas and the capacity of local amenity and infrastructure requires a balance of housing types”.
Councillor McIlwrath said he had indeed called in a decision to refuse an HMO. But it was his belief that they did serve a purpose
“Sometimes this party, perhaps, has been accused of going against HMOs for some particular reason,” said Councillor McIlwrath. “Of course, I lobbied and called in an application, in a rural area of Loughgall, where a well-known fruit grower needed accommodation on site for his workers, so yes, absolutely. There was two actually that I lobbied on. The second one was a commercial property in Portadown that was being turned into apartments for HMO use.
“So, absolutely, where the circumstances are right, this party and our councillors will absolutely fight the coroner, where that application is deemed to be right. But the point of the motion, as far as I can gather, is the change the demonstrable change to residential areas and that’s the difference.”
The amendment to the motion was defeated on a vote of 19 to 18, but the original motion as presented was passed.
In thanking those who backed it, Councillor Kyle Moutray said: “I believe this to be a balanced and proportionate proposal. It seeks to ensure that we, as a council, are proactive, that we properly plan for the potential impacts of the over-concentration of HMOs, and that we finally use the powers already available to us.
“Other councils are already moving in this direction, introducing clear thresholds on HMO concentration. What this motion proposes is simply that we do the same, putting in place a clear, locally defined framework, rather than relying on case by case judgements.”
