Councillors say no to third HMO in a row on Portadown road with 'harm to the character of the area' concerns voiced
ABC Planning committee members have refused a planning application for a house in multiple occupancy (HMO) at 25 Tandragee Road, Portadown, despite Planning officers’ recommendation for approval.
There are growing concerns over the number of HMOs in Portadown, and the proposed HMO at 25 Tandragee Road is directly adjacent to two existing HMOs – at No. 23 and No. 27 – was deemed to be unacceptable in what is a settled residential area with family homes.
The planning application was lodged by Jason Martin, from JWM Planning Ltd, Ballymena, on behalf of Adam Qureshi, 25 Tandragee Road. It was listed for determination at the June 3 Planning & Regulatory Services meeting of Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon (ABC) Borough Council.
The applicant was seeking permission to turn a residential dwelling into a six-person, six-bedroom HMO.
Principal Planning officer, Roisin Hamill told committee members: “Fifteen letters of objection and two letters of support have been received.
“Officers are of the opinion the proposed development complies with the Area Plan, the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), and all other relevant planning policies. Subject to conditions, it is recommended that planning permission is granted.”
The letters of objections included one from Upper Bann MP Carla Lockhart.
Councillor Scott Armstrong (DUP, Armagh DEA) asked: “It says there are two recent approvals on this road — 82 Tandragee Road, and 27 Tandragee Road. Can you confirm the distance of those two applications compared to the one we’re discussing today?”
The Principal Planning officer replied: “No. 82 Tandragee Road is on the opposite side of the road, on the second terrace down and it’s probably about a three-minute walk from the current application site, and then No. 27 Tandragee Road is directly adjacent to the current application site.”
Councillor Peter Lavery (Alliance, Lurgan DEA) was concerned to hear a planning application for a new HMO had been lodged at No. 25, when there are already HMOs at No. 23 and 27 Tandragee Road.
Under Consideration
The senior Planning officer said: “No. 27 is directly adjacent to the site on the same side of the road. No. 23 — we have a current CLEUD (Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use) application which is still under consideration, but it is a registered HMO. So, this would be in between the two of them.”
Cllr Julie Flaherty (UUP, Portadown DEA) referred to a parking survey, and photographs accompanying the report, which appeared to suggest there was adequate on-street car-parking capacity in the vicinity: “Anyone that knows that Tandragee Road knows that both sides of that road are parked on, on the footpaths and everything, morning, noon, and night.
“I could not tell you when you would see that street with so few cars parked on it. We’re now going to have three [HMOs] in a row just at that particular juncture, when you’re coming out of Annagh Bridge.
“Never mind when you get to that next corner, which is a bottleneck at this moment in time — an absolute bottleneck.”
Councillor Kyle Moutray (DUP, Portadown) echoed Cllr Flaherty’s remarks: “It’s obviously a very busy road, and my own experience is that often there are cars parked on the pavements and it’s actually a complaint that’s raised with me an awful lot, that people struggle to actually walk on the footpath and push prams down it, and all the rest of those types of things. So, that is definitely a concern.”
Cllr Ian Wilson (DUP, Banbridge DEA) concurred with his party colleague: “The parking around this area is horrendous at times. Sometimes you’re weaving in and out of parked vehicles and it’s extremely dangerous. I’ve seen kids trying to cross the road there and nearly get hit. So, it is an extremely busy stretch of road.”
Every Morning
Likewise, Cllr Armstrong remarked: “I use that road every morning and it is a bottleneck at the moment.”
Cllr Moutray was concerned about a precedent being possibly set in the borough, should three HMOs come into being side by side.
Legal advice was sought on what constituted clustering, and head of Planning, Robbie McNaugher explained this was a “subjective test”, on a par with what constitutes “demonstrable harm” under current planning regulations.
Cllr Armstrong added: “There are 110 residential properties on that stretch of road, and we are going to have three [HMOs] directly in the middle of those three-storey buildings, and then another one a three-minute walk away.
“To me, there are more HMOs there than what we would consider normal in a less densely populated area. So, I’d be looking at that as demonstrable harm to the character of the area, and that’s my outlook on it.”
Cllr Moutray reiterated his concerns about the prospect of three HMOs being approved side by side: “Based on the previous comments, I do feel as though this will cause demonstrable harm to the character of the area. So, on that basis, I am inclined to propose that we refuse the officer’s recommendation.”
Cllr Moutray’s proposal was seconded by Cllr Armstrong.
The ‘three-HMOs-in-a-row’ concern was also a major sticking point for Cllr Lavery, who remarked: “We’re looking at potentially three HMOs in a row, which as others have said is just not appropriate. I think this is the first time this scenario has come to committee.”
The proposal to refuse the planning application was unanimously supported.
The head of Planning requested the following, as the debate drew to a close: “If members could confirm that they’re happy for us to bring draft reasons for refusal back to the next committee in July, for those to be ratified with the precise wording that will go in those decisions.”
This was unanimously agreed by committee members.
François Vincent, Local Democracy Reporter