Proposals for two new HMOs in Portadown have been turned down by ABC Council on the grounds they could cause “demonstrable harm” to the area.
Clustering and parking concerns were voiced when back-to-back applications were considered at ABC Council’s planning committee meeting in June.
One of the applications related to an existing house at 6 Goban Street, the other a property at 25 Tandragee Road.
In the case of the latter, it was confirmed that, if approved, it could potentially have led to three HMOs in a row in an area described as “predominantly residential”.
Each of the applications was considered in turn.
And, on the recommendation of DUP Councillor Kyle Moutray, seconded by party colleague, Councillor Scott Armstrong, the planning officer’s recommendation to approve in each case was rejected.
In the first matter, Principal Planning Officer Roisin Hamill said the application at 6 Goban Street – to which four objections were lodged – was for a “change of use from a dwelling for a five-person, five-bedroom house of multiple occupancy and a single-storey rear extension”.
The site, she said, was currently occupied by a three-bedroom, end-of-terrace, two-storey property, within the development limit of Portadown and just outside the town centre boundary.
She said officers considered the relevant policy consideration, which states that planning authorities “should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regards to the local development plan and other material considerations, unless proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance”.
Ms Hamill added: “Given the location of the application site adjacent to the town centre boundary in a mixed-use area which contains other residential properties, the proposed development will retain the building in residential use. There are no physical alterations proposed along the front elevation and officers are satisfied there will be no adverse impact on the design of the host property, the character of the area or the amenity of neighbouring properties.
“ Officers in DfI roads considered the submitted parking analysis and additional supporting information, including the objections. A parking analysis was carried out over two days, and the findings demonstrated that a minimum of 12 parking spaces were available within 200 metres of the application site. Officers, in consultation with DfI Roads, are satisfied the proposed development will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic.”
Objector Alison Curran, granted speaking rights, argued an “over-concentration” of HMOs and stated: “The decisions in relation to HMOs in Portadown are being taken in isolation, case by case, with no strategic planning policy or thresholds in place across the council area.
“HMOs are not factored into the Craigavon Area Plan, and the council policy has not been developed in light of the HMO Act.”
She quoted statistics from councillors at a meeting in April, when a notice of motion, brought by Councillor Kyle Moutray, was passed.
Ms Curran said a draft policy in preparation referenced a “proposed threshold of around 10%” in a street and continued: “There are nine houses on Goban Street already, one HMO, so surely two HMOs in nine houses constitutes over-provision and equates to 22% of the street.”
Citing figures of 54 HMOs in the ABC Council area as a whole – 38 of them in Portadown – she said if plans for two more before the committee were approved it would equate to “74% of the HMOs in the second largest council in Northern Ireland sitting within one town”.
Ms Curran also questioned the findings of a parking survey which “was carried out when three properties were vacant and during a holiday period”, and queried “what arrangements are in place in relation to the proposed management of the HMO to ensure there are only five tenants living in the property?”.
Jason Martin, the applicant’s agent, said they agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve and added: “I know that HMOs are a very contentious thing in Northern Ireland at the moment, and I can say that ABC Council have been very stringent in terms of looking at this application and making sure that it does meet thresholds of not changing the character of an area too much.”
In response to a question from DUP Councillor Scott Armstrong, planning officer Roisin Hamill confirmed the location of the proposed HMO to the existing HMO was “literally just across the road on the opposite side of the street”.
That done, Councillor Armstrong asked: “Would this not be considered as a clustering of an HMO on this road, considering there’s nine houses on the street and this will be the second one within a short distance?”
Ms Hamill said there was “no threshold at this moment in time in terms of planning policy”, and they currently looked at “demonstrable harm”, which covered issues such as “character of the area, impact on amenity, impact on parking”.
While accepting there was another HMO in “close proximity”, there was “no policy that says that’s unacceptable”.
Alliance Councillor Peter Lavery asked questions around making decisions on such matters when council was currently working on an HMO policy, due to be published in the coming months, which led to a 10-minute discussion in ‘confidential business’ to consider.
And when the meeting resumed, Ulster Unionist Councillor Julie Flaherty also raised concerns over the parking analysis provided.
She said there were five double-bedrooms which meant there was “not necessarily just going to be five cars”.
But Ms Hamill said: “The actual application stipulates five person, plus that’s something that would be controlled by way of licence, so the licence will stipulate the number of people that will be allowed to stay in the HMO and, if they breach their licence, it could be taken off them.”
Councillor Moutray said the SPPS test applied by officers stated that “development should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity or the character of the area”.
And he added: “My concern, based off the fact that this would now be the second HMO on a street that only has nine dwellings, which would ultimately make up 22% of the street in its entirety, is that this would constitute an over-concentration of HMOs and ultimately that that would have a demonstrable harm on the character of the area and ultimately alter the character of the area.”
Councillor Moutray proposed that the officer’s recommendation to approve be turned down, which was seconded by Councillor Scott Armstrong, with Councillor Julie Flaherty also voicing her agreement.
Moving on to the second application at 25 Tandragee Road, the 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.
Again, officers were “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”.
Councillor Scott Armstrong 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 again 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.”
On that front, DUP Councillor Ian Wilson described parking in the area as “horrendous”.
“Yes, there’s parking available in other parts of the road, but human nature is you want your car parked outside your property. People will park on the most convenient spot for them,” he stated.
Councillor 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.”
