Seven-bedroom HMO at 26 Union Street, Coleraine

What was proposed

The application sought to change a five-bedroom dwelling into a seven-bedroom HMO with a small single-storey rear extension.

“The application proposes the change of use of 26 Union Street, Coleraine from a five (5) bedroom residential dwelling to a seven (7) bedroom house of multiple occupancy (HMO) with single storey rear extension.”

“The single storey rear extension measures 2.7m x 2.2m. The proposed extension ‘squares off the existing ground floor footprint (W.C and kitchen area). It will have a flat roof (3m in height) and be finished to match the existing property.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a private garage and internal alterations, while another live HMO application concerned 54 Union Street.

“Application Number: C/1975/0498 (Application Site) Decision: Permission Granted / Decision Date: 27/08/1976 Proposal: PRIVATE GARAGE”

“Application Number: LA01/2025/1042/F (54 Union Street) Decision: Current live application.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the accommodation, amenity space, parking, traffic effects, design and extension acceptable under relevant planning policies.

“The scale, massing, design and external materials of the proposed rear extension are considered acceptable as it is sympathetic with the built form and appearance of the existing property. The single storey rear extension measures 2.7m x 2.2m. The proposed extension ‘squares off the existing ground floor footprint (currently housing a W.C and kitchen area) to provide extra kitchen facilities and a utility room.”

Officer report

Objections received

Objections concerned parking and traffic, HMO overprovision and community change, property values, and possible effects on services and utilities.

“Increased traffic and parking issues were noted as points of objection within representations. Objections stated that the proposed HMO would result in greater demand for parking on Union Street which according to objectors is already facing parking constraints.”

“Effect on property value was noted as another point of objection within representations. Objections stated that if approved, the HMO would detrimentally impact the value of neighbouring properties. No evidence of any impact on property values was submitted. The perceived loss of property value is not a planning consideration and therefore weight cannot be given to this element of the objection.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, describing the property as underused and the proposed HMO as managed accommodation meeting space and amenity standards.

The committee vote

A motion to approve was proposed and seconded; nine members voted for, three against and one abstained.

“Proposed by Alderman Coyle Seconded by Councillor Kennedy - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 9 and the policies and guidance in sections 7 and 8 and resolves to APPROVE planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 10.”

“The Chair put the motion to the Committee to vote. Members voted For; Members voted Against, 1 Members Abstained. The Chair declared the motion carried and application approved…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved planning permission subject to the conditions in the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 9 and the policies and guidance in sections 7 and 8 and resolves to APPROVE planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 10.”

Minutes