Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and explained the following key issues:

·        The principle of an HMO at the location

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the Alexandra Park area of townscape character (ATC);

·        Impact on residential amenity;

·        Traffic, parking and access; and

·        Waste and refuse collection.

She stated that the site was outside a Housing Management Area where Policy HOU10 applied and that there were no existing HMO properties on the street where eight HMO properties could be accommodated within the 10% policy threshold.

She reported that the proposal complied with the relevant space standards and was situated in a highly accessible and sustainable location, close to the Antrim Road.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that DfI Roads had offered no objection and a parking survey had been provided, she added that adequate bin storage had been provided in the rear alleyway.

She reported that two additional representations had been received following the publication of the Committee report, one letter of support and one letter of objection.  She outlined the reasons for support and objection and explained that those matters had been raised and considered in previously received objections.

She stated that, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal was considered acceptable and that it was recommended that planning permission was granted, subject to conditions.

The Chairperson welcomed Mr. A. Olphert, Create Architecture NI, to the meeting, speaking in support of the application.

Mr. Olphert acknowledged that there had been a number of objections to the application and stated that, given the negative press around HMO properties over the past years, that it was somewhat understandable, however, the vast majority of issues associated with intensive forms of housing are specific to policy areas and those issues had arisen due to the lack of controlled development in those areas, serving mostly the student population.

He highlighted that planning policy permits a 10% HMO property allowance on a given street and that the Council had confirmed that the application property was outside of a policy area and, of the 88 properties that were relevant to the address, there were currently no HMO properties.  He stated that approving the application would take the percentage of HMO properties on the street to 1.14%, which was well below the permitted 10%.

He pointed out that many of the objections received had cited parking as a concern, however, DfI Roads had confirmed, in its initial consultation response, that under planning policy, parking was not a consideration and that the parking survey had indicated an availability of seven on-street parking spaces, despite an increase of only two bedrooms in the application.

Mr. Olphert stated that he believed HMO properties could help alleviate the pressures on local housing and explained how the property had been derelict and in poor condition when purchased and that bringing it up to HMO standard would be a benefit to the local housing stock.

He addressed concerns around noise, antisocial behaviour and waste management, stating that HMO owners must complete a fit and proper person evaluation as well as providing an antisocial behaviour policy.

He outlined the demand for HMO accommodation in the city and those individuals who would use and benefit from its availability.

He concluded by stating that he believed that a HMO property, when developed in a controlled manner and properly regulated through Planning and Licensing, was a vital part of the housing market in any city with an ambition for growth.

A number of Members raised concerns with regard to waste and refuse collection, access, increased parking and traffic and residential amenity.

The Planning Manager informed the Committee that the application would not increase the bin requirement of the property and highlighted that a parking survey had been carried out and DfI Roads had offered no objection to the application.

Proposal

Moved by Councillor Maskey,

Seconded by Councillor McCann,

      “That the Committee agrees to refuse planning permission on grounds of insufficient parking to support the proposed development and unsuitable provision for bin storage and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the refusal reasons.”

On a vote by show of hands, 16 Members voted for the proposal and three against and it was declared carried.