The second of two HMOs turned down by ABC Council is now to be re-examined with an official appeal lodged.
The property, at 25 Tandragee Road, had been earmarked for a “six-person, six-bedroom HMO”.
It, and another property at Goban Street, where a five-bedroom HMO was proposed, were rejected by ABC Council in June.
Despite the recommendation at that time of planning officials that both should proceed, the applications were refused on the basis of “demonstrable harm”.
Markethill-based Gosford Rentals Ltd has initiated a challenge to that decision in relation to Goban Street by approaching the Planning Appeals Commission.
And less than two weeks later, the second applicant, Adam Qureshi, has also decided to go down the same route in a bid to overturn the council’s decision and win approval to proceed.
Presenting the application to committee in June, principal planning officer Roisin Hamill explained that it was for a change of use from a six-bedroom, mid-terrace, three-story house to a six-bedroom HMO, located outside Portadown town centre.
There were 15 letters of objection and two letters of support.
Officers had been “guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regards to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will call demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance”.
The application site lay approximately 460 metres south of the town centre boundary in a predominantly residential area.
Officers were satisfied “there will be no adverse impact on the design of the building, the character of the area, or the main neighbouring properties”.
A parking study carried out after 7pm over two days and in consultation with DfI found that a “minimum of 10 parking spaces were available within 60 metres of the application site”.
DUP Councillor Scott Armstrong, speaking at that meeting, had asked about the location of two recent HMO approvals in the area and was told one was “on the opposite side of the road on the second terrace down”, which was “probably about a three minute walk from the current application site”.
The other, at number 27 Tandragee Road, was “directly adjacent” to this proposed HMO.
Alliance Councillor Peter Lavery, considering the report, also highlighted a retrospective application for an HMO at number 23, meaning this would see three HMOs in a row.
Ms Hamill confirmed there was a current application for number 23, a registered HMO, and the application under consideration “would be in between the two of them”.
Ulster Unionist Councillor Julie Flaherty had voiced her frustration over parking and the studies having been conducted after 7pm.
She said: “Anyone that knows the Tandragee Road knows that both sides of that road are parked on, footpaths and everything, morning, noon and night. I could not tell you when you would see that street with so few cars parked on it.
“I’m finding that very difficult to balance, particularly, as it’s already been said, we’re now going to have three in a row, just at that particular junction, when you’re coming out of the Annagh Bridge, never mind when you get to that next corner, which is a bottleneck at this moment, an absolute bottleneck.
“So these parking things and Transport NI assessments, I’m getting very frustrated with, to be honest with you, because it is not reflective of what happens in these areas on a daily basis.”
Ms Hamill said it was “normal” for parking studies to be carried out at that time, adding: “What I would say is what officers have to balance against in this case is that this is a six-bedroom property. This could potentially hold six adults at the moment with cars, and we have to take that into account whenever we’re making an assessment of parking.”
DUP Councillor Kyle Moutray pointed out that having three HMOs in a row would be “irregular and probably not done anywhere else across the borough” and would “lead to concerns around over-concentration”.
While accepting there was currently no adopted policy that would “consider something like clustering”, he believed there was the “potential to undermine the balance of the community here”.
“I think that this could be a material change to what is identified as predominantly a residential area made up of family homes,” said Councillor Moutray.
Proposing that the recommendation to approve the development be declined, he said he was of the opinion it would “cause demonstrable harm to the character of the area”.
Councillor Scott Armstrong seconded the proposal, while Alliance Councillor Peter Lavery was in agreement too, adding: “I think this is the first time this scenario has come to committee, but I think three HMOs in a row, adjacent to each other, is not appropriate.”
With that decision taken, the Planning Appeals Commission will now revisit the Tandragee Road application – and that at Goban Street – and make a decision on whether or not the council’s decision to refuse should stand.
