5-person HMO at 29 Glencairn Street Edenderry, Belfast

What was proposed

The application sought to change a three-bedroom dwelling into a five-bedroom, five-person house in multiple occupation.

“Summary Committee Meeting Date: 10 th March 2026 Application ID: LA04/2025/1350/F Proposal: Change of Use from 3 bed Dwelling to 5-bed, 5-person HMO Location: Glencairn Street, Belfast, BT13 3LT Referral Route: Section 3.8.1 of the scheme of Delegation. request for the application to be reported to the Planning Committee by an Elected Member (Cllr. Verner).”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The property is a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling on a predominantly residential street, with front and rear amenity areas and on-street parking.

“The application site is located at 29 Glencairn Street which is a residential street located off the Ballygomartin Road. The dwelling on the application site comprises a 2 storey mid-terrace property. The property features an amenity area to the front and an enclosed rear amenity space which leads to an alley. On-street parking is available along Glencairn Street. Glencairn Street and the surrounding area are predominantly residential in nature.”

“The site does not fall within any site-specific zonings in the BUAP or either version of BMAP. The site does not fall within any of the existing HMO Policy Areas or Development Nodes as designated in the Belfast HMO Subject Plan 2015. Description of Proposed Development 3.1”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it met the HMO threshold and would not cause demonstrable harm to amenity, parking or traffic.

“The application has been called in for the following reasons: Overconcentration of HMOs 2. Parking and Traffic Issues 3. Impact on residential amenity 4. Property maintenance and waste management 5. Contrary to planning policy The proposal is compliant with Policy HOU10 in that the 10% threshold for HMOs on Glencairn Street has not yet been reached.”

“Recommendation Having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, the proposal is considered acceptable. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions. Delegated authority is sought for the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and deal with any other issues that arise, provided that they are not substantive.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Consultees mostly raised no objection, while NI Water recommended refusal and residents objected to HMOs, parking, amenity, waste, noise and sewage.

“Statutory Consultees DFI Roads – no objection NIEA – standing advice – conditions and informatives. Shared Environmental Services – no objection subject to conditions NI Water – recommend refusal due to network capacity issues and recommend connections to the public sewerage system are curtailed.”

“Water supply and sewage overrun. NI Water, NIEA: Water management unit and Shared Environmental Services have been consulted in relation to this proposal and their responses are set out within the main body of the report and a conditions is proposed requiring details of foul and surface water drainage to be submitted for approval.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A councillor spoke against the application, while the agent supported renovation, claimed parking was sufficient and described the intended occupants as nurses.

The committee’s debate

Members considered the street’s narrowness, and the Planning Manager said restricted refuse collection and limited rear amenity space could justify refusal.

“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.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The Committee voted 17–2 to refuse the application because it would create refuse-collection difficulties, loss of amenity and insufficient amenity space.

“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.”

Minutes