Six-bedroom HMO approved on Broughshane Street after council loses appeal
HMO application initially refused on parking concerns, but the decision was overturned on appeal:119 Broughshane Street, Ballymena
Sunday 15 November 2026
A decision to refuse planning permission for a six-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) on Broughshane Street in Ballymena has been overturned by the Planning Appeals Commission.
Applicant Joe McLaughlin has been granted full planning permission to convert the dwelling at 119 Broughshane Street into an HMO and build a second-floor rear extension.
Commissioner Hannah Ellison concluded that adequate parking was available nearby and that Mid and East Antrim Borough Council had failed to sustain its reason for refusal.
Parking at the centre of appeal
The appeal concerned a three-storey, end-of-terrace property on the eastern side of Broughshane Street, currently used as a six-bedroom dwelling. It has a two-storey rear extension and a small rear yard.
The Commissioner’s report noted that the two adjoining properties in the short terrace each have permission for conversion into apartments.
The council raised no concerns about the proposed extension at No 119. Its objection centred on parking provision and the vehicle movements that could result from future occupants searching for spaces near their home.
At the hearing, the council clarified that its concerns about “servicing” did not relate to deliveries, refuse collections or the general operation of the property.
However, the Commissioner said the council had no evidence that vehicle movements associated with the proposal would disrupt traffic flow. It also confirmed that it had no concerns about the proposal’s effect on the area’s character.
“I consider the council’s reference to servicing and its reliance on policy are somewhat misplaced,” she said.
No increase in parking demand
Applying the 2005 Parking Standards, the council calculated that both the existing dwelling and the proposed HMO would require three parking spaces.
Although it accepted that the requirement was the same for both uses, the council argued that the absence of designated spaces meant the proposal did not meet the standard.
The Commissioner disagreed, stating:
“Although I accept that the appeal development does not include off-street parking provision, there would be no change in the parking demand when compared to the existing use.”
A parking survey submitted by the appellant also supported the case for approval.
The Commissioner found that it demonstrated sufficient capacity within walking distance of the property, both on-street and in a nearby car park, to accommodate the proposed development’s parking demand in the evening and overnight.
She noted that, while evening and overnight demand is typically higher in predominantly residential areas, the property’s town centre location meant parking patterns were likely to differ.
“I consider that the three spaces required for the appeal proposal could be accommodated by the existing capacity in the locality, as it is currently,” she said.
Council’s refusal overturned
The Commissioner concluded that vehicle movements associated with the HMO could be accommodated within the town centre without concerns arising over occupants’ comings and goings.
The council had also raised no objections concerning housing provision, waste, residential amenity, crime and anti-social behaviour, future occupants’ living conditions or whether the development would set a precedent.
Having considered the evidence, the Commissioner found no reason to reach a different conclusion on those matters.
Allowing the appeal, she concluded:
“There is adequate parking provision for the proposed development at full standard or the reduced level. The council has failed to sustain its reason for refusal, thus the appeal shall succeed.”
