A decision to refuse permission for a five-bedroom HMO on a Portadown street is to be challenged.
The application – relating to a property at 6 Goban Street – was one of two pertaining to HMO proposals in the town which had been rejected by ABC Council.
The other related to a site on the Tandragee Road.
Both had originally been recommended for approval by council’s own planning officials at the start of June.
But the planning committee opted not to accept such guidance and instead turned down each in turn.
Now the Markethill-based company behind the Goban Street development is to seek to overturn the decision made by councillors.
For Gosford Rentals Ltd has now enlisted the Planning Appeals Commission and lodged official documentation in a bid to win approval.
The application had been turned down on the argument that it could cause “demonstrable harm” to the area.
It was on the recommendation of DUP Councillor Kyle Moutray, seconded by party colleague, Councillor Scott Armstrong, that the planning officer’s recommendation to approve in each case was overruled.
Principal Planning Officer Roisin Hamill had told the committee in June that 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 at June’s meeting, 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 an earlier 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.
As the planning committee sat again this week, on Wednesday, one of the matters to be agreed was to finalise the reasons for refusal.
The Goban Street application, meanwhile, has now been listed by the Planning Appeals Commission on its website.
The Northern Ireland planning portal also details the Goban Street proposal’s current status as “appeal in progress”.
