A nine-bedroom HMO on an ‘historic’ street in Lurgan is being recommended for approval – despite numerous neighbours’ fears over anti-social behaviour and parking among key issues of concern.
The property is currently a five-bedroom mid-terrace house at 82 Hill Street.
Proposals by CMKAS Ltd had been lodged with Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council to have it converted into a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO).
And now officials will recommend council’s planning committee approve the application, when it sits next Wednesday.
According to a parking analysis study, the area surrounding the property has “sufficient capacity” to accommodate the change of use.
“There will be no significant adverse effect to the adjacent neighbours,” it adds.
“An HMO is a cost effective housing solution targeted towards the individual who works locally, whom likely uses public transport or does not own a vehicle.”
The survey was carried out over three days, during a “variation of times and dates”, to provide an “accurate overview of the parking demand in the area”.
On all three days, the report noted there was a “significant quantity of unused car parking spaces in the surrounding area” and there was “no significant decrease in parking availability during peak time”.
The study adds: “HMO accommodation is generally utilised by individuals and not families. It provides a cost effective and flexible housing solution for individuals, most of whom will generally not own a car.
“It is anticipated that the future tenants will be employed within the local area, either within walking distance or using the nearby public transportation network, therefore reducing the impact of additional car parking substantially.”
The study concluded that the conversion of 82 Hill Street to an HMO would be “acceptable and not cause a significant impact to the surrounding neighbours existing parking infrastructure”.
In all, ten objections to the change of use to an HMO were lodged with planners.
The vast majority of them all opposed the development on the grounds of parking, despite the assertions made in the parking analysis provided to council planners.
One wrote: “Hill Street is a lovely tree lined area with beautiful Victorian properties which are privately owned. We have recently moved into a neighbouring property and invested a lot of money restoring our home, to then being informed that an HMO may be developed next door.
“The area as it stands already has a multitude of cars parked in front of their houses and neighbouring streets. There is a church opposite which most nights has some form of activity where the streets are loaded with cars, and it is difficult to find a space near our own front doors, never mind adding additional cars to the area.
“To be told that there is ample parking in other streets, I would love to ask the investor of 82 Hill Street, would he like to walk from three streets away to get to his privately owned home, and in fact would he like to have an HMO next door to him?
“There is also a problem with drainage in the area, having old Victorian pipes, and adding extra pressure to them would cause huge issues for everyone involved.
“Let the investor who bought 82 Hill Street propose an HMO next door to his house if he is so keen to make a profit, and let him deal with the negative issues that comes with an HMO like social issues, parking issues, noise, safety and the devaluing of neighbouring properties.
“We can’t believe an HMO is even being considered in an area of lovely historic homes by the council, who are supposed to control alterations of heritage buildings, and again, let whoever passes these proposals put an HMO next door to their own private homes.
“We strongly reject an HMO being passed at 82 Hill Street and would urge the council to take into consideration the lovely historic homes that owners have invested their hard earned money into restoring and retaining the heritage of the properties.
Another said: “While I understand the need for diverse housing options, I have significant concerns regarding the implications of this development on our community, particularly concerning parking availability.
“The proposed HMO will likely increase the number of residents in an already congested area. Our neighborhood currently struggles with limited parking spaces, and the addition of multiple tenants will exacerbate this issue.
“Many residents rely on street parking, and the influx of additional vehicles could lead to further congestion, making it difficult for current residents to find parking for their own vehicles.
“Moreover, the increase in traffic and parked cars may pose safety hazards for pedestrians, particularly children and the elderly, who regularly navigate our streets. The lack of designated parking for the additional tenants will undoubtedly lead to overflow parking in surrounding areas, further straining our community’s resources.”
A further objector cited outlined her concerns: “Overcrowding. Parking issues. Anti-social behaviour. Loss of a family home. Impact on local schools and services. Noise and nuisance issues. Waste and rubbish problems. Over concentration of HMOs in the area.”
NI Water, Environmental Health and Historic Environment Division were content with the proposals.
On the issue of parking, DfI Roads said there was “no specific” standard when it came to HMOs.
The official informed planners: “The standard relates only to the number of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms will increase from five to nine, thereby increasing the parking demand slightly. Published standards suggest an increase of 0.25 spaces per additional bedroom.
“Council Planning may wish to consider the amenity impact which may be caused by increased demand on the existing on-street parking. The agent has provided a parking analysis which has highlighted the availability of spaces in close proximity to the site.
“Whether the level of on street / public parking available is suitable and sufficient to facilitate the proposed development remains an amenity issue about which Council Planning must take a view and hopefully DFI Roads comments will assist with this consideration.”
And having now considered the proposals and responses, planners are recommending the HMO should be allowed to proceed.
It will be up to the planning committee on Wednesday to decide whether or not to accept that opinion and if the development is allowed to go ahead.
