Agenda item

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with an overview of the application and highlighted the following key issues for consideration:

·        The principle of an HMO at the location;

·        Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area;

·        Impact on residential amenity;

·        Traffic, parking and access; and

·        Waste and refuse collection.

She reported that 69 third party objections had been received in relation to the application and the concerns raised included proliferation, house values, requirement for family homes, parking, amenity, noise, refuse, antisocial behaviour, sewage and emergency vehicle access.

            She explained that the proposal was compliant with Policy HOU10 in that the 10% HMO threshold on Glencairn Street had not yet been reached and that it was considered that the proposal would not be harmful in terms of traffic, parking, impact on residential amenity or the amenity of the surrounding area.

            She reported that DfI Roads, NIEA and SES had offered no objections to the application and that NI Water had recommended refusal, based on network capacity.

            She stated that it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

            The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Verner to the meeting, who attended to speak in objection to the application.

            Councillor Verner explained that she was attending the meeting to seek a refusal of the application and stated that 71 objections had been received in relation to the application citing that it would cause unacceptable harm to residential amenity and parking.

She stated that Waste Management had clearly outlined the current issues with constrained access and that additional bins would further impact on the local residents.  She added that the issues would impact house prices and only serve to erode the residential character of a settled community.

            She stated that Glencairn Street already had extreme parking issues that caused access challenges for essential services that included ambulance and fire service.  She explained that she had been working with a local constituent over the previous year to secure a disabled parking space as, due to the high volume of parked cars, she was having to park over a third of a mile from her property, and she added that she had letters of support from the Council, PSNI and local clergy which acknowledged the current lack of amenity.

            She concluded by stating that, if the application was approved, it would contribute to further over intensification of a narrow residential street, increase parking stress and the erosion of a settled community, and she asked the Committee to reject the application.

            The Chairperson thanked Councillor Verner for her representation and welcomed Mr. Crockard, CBD Architecture, to the meeting, who was speaking on behalf of the applicant.

            Mr. Crockard explained that the applicant was a local landlord who already owned two properties on Glencairn Street, both of which were uninhabitable when he purchased them, and that he fully refurbished them to a high standard and had been well maintained homes which were rented to local families.

He stated that the applicant had recently purchased 29 Glencairn Street at auction with the intention of bringing what was currently an uninhabitable property back into use and he explained that the applicant understood that many of the concerns raised by residents had been when the property was previously owned by a large HMO developer that operated across Belfast.  He added that, after those objections had been raised, the property was placed on the market and was purchased by the applicant.

He stated that the property was in poor condition, was not contributing positively to the street and that the proposal was to fully renovate the house and convert it into a five-bedroom shared property, finished to the same high standard as the other homes that he had already refurbished on Glencairn Street.

He explained that the intended occupants would be nurses working in the local hospital and that the applicant had been working with a nursing agency that recruited nurses from England and travelled to Northern Ireland to help relieve pressure on the health service.  He added that the applicant already provided accommodation for key workers through the agency and could provide a letter of recommendation, if required.

Mr. Crockard stated that both the parking survey and the road services assessment had confirmed that there was sufficient parking available in the area even at peak times.

He stated that due to the applicant owning properties either side of the application site, he had a very strong personal interest in ensuring that the property was managed properly.

            He concluded by stating that the applicant aimed to continue improving older properties in the area and bringing homes that were uninhabitable back into good use while maintaining positive relationships with the local community and that he was content to comply with any reasonable conditions to ensure the property was managed to the highest standard for both tenants and surrounding residents.

            In response to a question from a Member with regard to amenity, parking and the parking survey, Mr. Crockard stated that the parking survey had been carried out independently and within the required parameters, he added that the applicant intended for future tenants to no be car-owners and therefore would not contribute to parked cars within the area.

            The Chairperson highlighted that each application needed to be considered on a case by case basis and pointed out that Glencairn Street was significantly narrower than previous applications which had been refused by the Committee and referred to the Planning Appeals Commission.

            After a number of comments from Members, the Planning Manager explained that restricted bin collection was clearly material and the lack of amenity space to the rear of the property would be considered as reasonable grounds for refusal.

Proposal

Moved by Alderman McCullough,

Seconded by Alderman Lawlor,

       “That the Committee refuses the application on the basis that the proposal would result in difficulties with refuse collection and a loss of amenity and insufficient amenity space for residents and delegates authority to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the reasons for refusal.”

            On a vote, seventeen Members voted for the proposal and two against and it was declared carried.