Approval has been given for what will be only the second registered HMO in Banbridge despite dozens of objections.
The application to change a four-bedroom house at 23 Brooke Terrace in the town into a five-person, five-bedroom house of multiple occupation was passed after being put to a recorded vote.
The decision was taken at ABC Council’s September planning committee sitting.
The application, in the name of Peter Irvine, had previously come to committee in May with a recommendation to approve but was deferred to allow for a site visit.
That was held in August and four councillors attended.
When it came before September’s planning committee this week, many councillors then excused themselves and left the chamber, citing non-attendance at the site visit or having a relative object to the proposal as their reason for doing so.
Principal planning officer Roisin Hamill again presented the application report with the opinion that it should be allowed to proceed.
In all, 38 objections were received from 21 separate addresses, raising main concerns which included increased noise, parking and congestion, impact on the character of the area and amenity, devaluing property, potential for anti-social behaviour and increased household waste.
There were also claims that not all neighbours were notified, with additional concerns surrounding overcrowding, fire safety, strain on water and sewage and the “cumulative impact” of HMOs.
The planning officer said there would be “very little change” to the physical appearance of the property, where it was proposed to replace a garage door with patio doors at the rear.
The property – two-storey to the front and three to the rear – would see one bedroom at basement level, one at first floor and three at second floor level.
In response to a question from Sinn Féin councillor Paul Duffy, Ms Hamill confirmed that currently there is only one other officially registered HMO in Banbridge, that being at Tudor Oaks.
DUP councillor Kyle Moutray raised his concerns.
He said: “From the site visit that took place, I had certainly remarked that it appeared to be an established residential area, characterised by tight, uniform terraced housing, and that was very plain to see. The houses were similar in nature.”
Councillor Moutray enquired if officers could explain if “any specific assessment” could be made on the impact of changing a four-bedroom house to a five-bedroom HMO.
“What impact will that have on an established character?” he asked. “Is there any specific assessment made in coming to that conclusion? I just ask that question specifically because my fear is that that may only become clearer in time, whenever there’s a lived experience of people who have lived next to it and lived beside a home of very different occupation of use.”
Ms Hamill responded, saying that in terms of assessing the impact they had to look at whether there was going to be “any demonstrable harm”.
She explained officers had looked at the impact on the character of the area, the impact on residential amenity and car parking.
In terms of the latter, there was “ample parking available at peak times to serve the proposed development”.
After consulting with environmental health, “no concerns have been raised with regard to the impact on residential amenity”.
And in terms of the character of the area, Ms Hamill said it was currently a four-bedroom property that could presently accommodate four adults which was going to change to a five-bedroom, five-person HMO.
She added: “It is a residential property in a predominantly residential area, albeit it’s a higher-density residential property, marginally, and, in our view, that doesn’t impact on the character of the area.”
Councillor Moutray said he understood that HMOs were classified as residential properties but he felt “that classification maybe seems a little bit broad”.
He said an HMO was “inherently different” to a “single family dwelling” in terms of “intensification of use”.
“There’s more people coming and going from the property,” added Councillor Moutray. “There are five separate people in this specific application, and those people could continually be changing, so it is, in my view, a step away from the established character of the area that we are talking about here.”
By way of clarification, Ms Hamill said HMOs did not fall within any particular class, so it was a “sui generis” use.
She pointed out that the Planning Appeals Commission had previously commented that they do identify HMOs as “being residential use, albeit they are higher density residential use”.
This, added Ms Hamill, was an additional bedroom potentially housing one additional person, so it was “not hugely more” in terms of density.
After discussion, Sinn Féin councillor Paul Duffy proposed accepting the recommendation to approve.
He said visiting the site, he had got a “clearer picture”, adding: “There were a lot of houses that had their garages already converted into downstairs rooms, one way or another.”
He acknowledged there were “a lot of objections” but added that the “concerns have been all answered”.
Councillor Duffy said he did not believe the change was “going to have that much of an impact to the area”.
Councillor Fergal Donnelly seconded the recommendation, while councillor Kyle Moutray asked for a recorded vote.
He said it was his view that the “intensification argument” was weighing heavily and he did not believe it would be “compatible with the established character” at Brooke Terrace.
When put to the vote, councillors Paul Duffy and Fergal Donnelly, along with party colleague councillor John Óg O’Kane, were in favour of approval, while councillor Moutray voted against.
