Planning appeal against Mid and East Antrim Council dismissed for proposed 10-bedroom HMO property

An appeal against the refusal of full planning permission by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council for a proposed house in multiple occupation (HMO) at 14 Victoria Road, Larne, has been dismissed by the Planning Appeals Commission.

Full planning permission had been sought to change the use of a six-bedroom dwelling to a ten-bedroom HMO. The appeal was submitted by Nadia Property Ltd, and a site visit took place on June 2.

In the commissioner’s report, it was stated that “the main issues in this appeal are whether the appeal proposal would provide a high quality and suitable living environment; and create or add to a pollution problem”.

The report explained that the building, a former dental surgery, is a two-and-a-half storey end-terrace property. It noted that the council had previously granted full planning permission for a change of use from a dental surgery to a dwelling.

Under the appeal proposal, two existing bedrooms would be subdivided, part of a ground floor front room would be converted into a bedroom, and another ground floor room to the rear would also be converted into a bedroom. The plans also included a kitchen and shower room on the ground floor, with a shower room or bathroom on each of the upper floors.

The report stated: “The council contend that the proposed level of accommodation would not create a high quality or sustainable living environment.”

It added that the council’s concerns related to compatibility with surrounding land uses and the impact on the inherent character of the locality.

While the appellants argued that the proposal would make a positive addition to the town centre, the council considered that the area predominantly comprises single-family homes with four, five or six bedrooms, and that the proposal would introduce a high-density form of housing out of character with the locality.

However, the commissioner concluded: “From the evidence presented and given its town centre location, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would be incompatible with surrounding land uses or detract from the inherent character of the locality.”

Addressing living conditions, the commissioner said the council believed the proposed level and quality of accommodation had the potential to cause harm to human health and the overall well-being of future residents.

The council’s concern was that there would be no living space within the property, with the only internal communal or recreational space being the kitchen area. Concerns were also raised regarding the size of the three smallest bedrooms. The appellants argued that the individual bedrooms could provide sufficient space for relaxing and watching television.

Having inspected the property and reviewed the proposed floor plans, the commissioner stated: “I consider that the bedrooms would be of a sufficient size to provide adequate space for the purpose of bedroom accommodation only.”

In relation to communal facilities, the commissioner accepted that the kitchen would provide space for residents to prepare meals and eat together. However, it was noted that there would be no space within the kitchen, nor any separate room, to accommodate a communal living area where residents could relax and socialise away from cooking and eating activities.

“In my judgement, the lack of provision of such a form of communal living area or space within the property for some ten individual adults would cause demonstrable harm to the well-being of those residents,” the commissioner stated. “Furthermore, this lack of provision would not create a high quality and sustainable residential environment.”

Wastewater capacity was also a key issue. The appellants indicated that the development would rely on the mains wastewater infrastructure, but the council argued there was insufficient capacity within the system and that non-mains infrastructure may be required. The council further stated that insufficient information had been submitted to assess this.

The commissioner said that an NI Water representative informed the hearing that the property is located in an area identified as having a pollution risk. “In the absence of sufficient information, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not create or add to a pollution problem,” the report concluded.

Other concerns raised by the council and third parties included potential privacy issues for the proposed front ground floor bedroom, overlooking of neighbouring properties, overcrowding, increased on-street parking demand, noise, and waste storage and collection arrangements.

While the commissioner found that these issues did not individually justify dismissing the appeal, the council’s refusal was ultimately upheld on the grounds of inadequate communal living provision and unresolved wastewater capacity and pollution concerns.