Agenda item

            The Committee was provided with the principal aspects of the application for a change of use and extension to a former commercial unit to create two Houses in Multiple Occupation and two residential dwellings.

            She explained the issues which had been considered in the assessment of the scheme, including the principle of development, the design and impact on the character and appearance of the area and the acceptability of HMO accommodation.

            The Members were advised that the site was located within the existing development limits in both BUAP and dBMAP and was designated as being within the Donegall Road Area of Townscape Character (ATC) and Arterial Route 03/07 within dBMAP.  The site also fell within the Donegall Road HMO Policy Area, as stipulated within the HMO Subject Plan for the Council area.

            The Case officer explained that the proposal was considered to represent overdevelopment of the site, being of an inappropriate design, mass and appearance.  She added that it failed to respect the surrounding character context with the introduction of a raised ridge height within the terrace.  It was reported that it failed to provide a design and layout which promoted safety and security.

            The Members were advised that the proposal would result in a further increase in the number of dwellings converted to HMO use in excess of the 30% threshold, resulting in an oversupply of HMO accommodation within the Policy Area.

            The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Late Items pack.  The Committee was advised that amended plans had been received from the applicant the previous week to overcome Policy QD1 of PPS7 issues, including the creation of a yard area to address the security concerns and a reduction to the ridge height.  The Case officer explained that the amended plans also included box dormer windows which were untypical to the area.

            The agent for the application had disputed the HMO figures within the Policy Area and had requested the attendance of the Council’s HMO Manager at the Planning Committee meeting.  The Case officer explained that the published figures within the HMO Subject Plan were adopted and that the agent had been advised of that.

            It was reported that Environmental Health and NI Water had both been consulted in respect of the application and had no objections.

            The Case officer outlined that six neighbouring properties had been notified of the application and that no third party representations had been received.

            The Chairperson advised the Members that a late request to address the Committee had been received from the applicant, Mr. G. Hughes.  The Committee acceded to receive a deputation from Mr. Hughes and he was welcomed to the meeting.  He advised the Committee that:

·        he disputed that the Donegall Road Policy Area was at saturation point;

·        he had submitted a request for information to the NIHE, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, and he advised that NIHE’s response stated that there had been no complaints in relation to HMOs in the area;

·        he stated that he believed that more up to date figures were held by the NIHE, which illustrated that there were only 13 HMOs in the area and no suspected HMOs and, given that there were 410 properties in the area, there was a 3% saturation in the area, not 30%;

·        the Planning Department did not use an updated list;

·        the HMO Subject Plan and the Planning Appeal Commission stated that the NIHE list was the best list to use; 

·        the ridge height had been reduced in the amended plans and that the dormer windows could be made pitched;

·        no objections had been raised; and

·        there was a huge demand for good quality accommodation in the city, and that house sharing was important in providing affordable accommodation.

            In response to a Member’s question, the applicant advised that he envisaged that four persons would occupy a four bedroom HMO.

            In relation to the disparity between the NIHE figures and the figures which the Planning Department used, the Case officer explained that the Licensing register served a different purpose to the Planning register and that in some times the two did not marry up.  She advised the Committee that the Planning and Policy Unit was actively working to try to bring together a complete picture of the situation across the city, but that the adopted policy was the 2004 database and that, until that work had been completed, those figures would be used.  The Director added that a training session on HMOs, which had been carried out a few months ago, would be repeated.

            The Committee agreed the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application, with delegated authority granted to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the refusal reasons.

(The Committee adjourned for a ten minute break at this point)

(Councillor McKeown left the meeting at this point)