Ballymena HMO refusal overturned after council parking concerns rejected

Waveney Road, Ballymena

Monday 28 September 2026

A refusal by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council to grant planning permission for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 49 Waveney Road, Ballymena, has been overturned by the Planning Appeals Commission.

The proposal, involving a change of use from a four-bedroom dwelling to a five-bedroom, five-person HMO, was turned down by the council’s Planning Committee in January.

There were 40 objections to the proposal, raising concerns over increased density, loss of character, parking provision and HMO licensing. Two letters of support were submitted by Ballymena United Football Club, indicating the property would be used by some players during the playing season.

Parking concerns at centre of appeal

A report by Planning Appeals Commissioner Gareth McCallion said the main issues related to “whether the proposed development would result in the intensification of parking requirements, significantly inconvenience the movement of road users and impact on the local environmental quality of the area”.

The appeal relates to a three-storey, single-fronted red-brick terraced property containing four bedrooms.

The report said planning policy supports the conversion or change of use of existing buildings to flats or apartments within settlements, provided the proposal delivers a “high-quality residential environment, safeguards the amenity of existing and future occupants, respects the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area, and provides satisfactory access and parking arrangements”.

It noted that development proposals must provide “adequate parking and appropriate servicing arrangements and must not prejudice road safety”.

The report also indicated that “flexibility in parking standards may be permitted where sustainable travel opportunities, shared parking arrangements, nearby parking availability or wider planning benefits can be demonstrated”.

Council argued development would increase parking pressure

“The council argues that the absence of any off-street parking provision results in an over-reliance on on-street parking in an area already identified by DfI Roads as experiencing parking constraints,” the report said.

“It maintains that the proposal fails to provide adequate parking to serve the development and would intensify existing parking pressures.”

“While the council refers generally to concerns that can arise from property conversions, including overlooking, increased traffic congestion and the loss of family-sized housing, it has not identified any specific harm that would arise in this case,” the commissioner added.

Mr McCallion also considered objections that the proposal would “reduce the supply of family housing, alter the character of the area and undermine community cohesion”.

“I acknowledge that the proposal would result in the loss of a four-bedroom dwelling. However, the property would remain in residential use and continue to contribute to the housing stock in an alternative form.

“No persuasive evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the loss of a single dwelling would materially affect the supply of family housing within either the established residential area or Ballymena generally, nor that it would undermine the area’s character or function,” he stated.

Parking standards ‘not absolute requirements’

“The council’s concerns centre on parking and servicing arrangements. I acknowledge that the proposal would not provide dedicated off-street parking and would therefore fall below the indicative parking standards referred to by the council,” the commissioner continued.

However, he stated that parking standards are “not absolute requirements and must be considered in the context of the particular development and its location”.

He questioned what he described as a “speculative shortfall identified” by the council, saying it had not demonstrated that the proposal would “give rise to unacceptable congestion, displacement parking, servicing difficulties or road safety concerns”.

He added that “no evidence was provided to demonstrate the quantity of available on-street parking in this area or surrounding streets”.

The commissioner said he would “attach significant weight to the absence of any objection from DfI (Roads) and to the parking survey evidence submitted at appeal”.

“This provides objective, location specific evidence of available parking capacity and directly addresses the concern that insufficient information had been provided regarding on-street parking availability,” the commissioner stated.

“There is limited evidential basis for concluding that the proposal would give rise to unacceptable parking impacts,” he stressed.

“I am not persuaded that the proposal would result in unacceptable traffic generation, congestion, servicing difficulties or harm to road safety. I therefore conclude that the proposal satisfies the parking and servicing requirements.”

Concerns over services and anti-social behaviour considered

The commissioner also considered concerns about the potential impact of increasing the property from four to five bedrooms.

“I have considered the objectors’ concerns that the increase from four to five bedrooms could place additional pressure on local services and infrastructure,” he continued.

“NI Water’s response does not amount to an objection in principle to the proposal. The dwelling is capable of accommodating the proposed level of occupation.

“No compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would place an unacceptable burden on existing infrastructure.”

He also addressed concerns surrounding the behaviour of future occupants.

“I also attach little weight to concerns relating to anti-social behaviour, noise, nuisance and the conduct of future occupants. Planning decisions must be based on the likely land-use consequences of a proposal rather than assumptions regarding the behaviour of future residents,” he emphasised.

“My site inspection confirmed that the dwelling contains well-proportioned rooms and retains communal kitchen, dining and living facilities for the benefit of future occupants. In these circumstances, I have no persuasive evidence that the proposed use would result in unacceptable living conditions,” the commissioner also said.

Precedent concerns rejected

Concerns were also raised that approving the proposal could establish a precedent for further HMO development in the area.

However, the commissioner said:

“Each planning application must be determined on its own merits having regard to the particular facts of the case and the relevant planning policy framework.”

Concluding his assessment, Mr McCallion stated:

“I find no substantive evidence that the proposal would harm residential amenity, adversely affect local character, create an unacceptable parking or road safety issue, or place undue pressure on local infrastructure.

“Many of the concerns raised by objectors are speculative in nature and unsupported by objective evidence. I conclude that neither the council’s reason for refusal nor the third-party objections have been sustained.”