Four-room HMO at 6 Captain Street Lower, Coleraine

What was proposed

The application sought to change the first- and second-floor flat into a four-bedroom HMO, with shared kitchen, dining and lounge spaces.

“Proposal: Change of Use of 1st and second floor flat to 4-room HMO. ConArea: NIA Valid Date: 17/01/2025 Listed Building Grade: N/A”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is above a café in a town-centre terrace, with a rear yard and nearby parking.

“The application property is a flat on the first and attic floors of a mid-terrace building. The site consists of a ground floor café and flat above. The property is within the town centre and has a footpath at the front. There is a flat roof return to the rear. There is a front and rear access to the flat. There is a pitched roof with sky light windows. There is a rear yard area accessed via a side main road by a secure gate.”

“The property is within a row of commercial properties, some with residential above. There is a car park close by in Castle Lane. The Old Courthouse Bar is opposite the site.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the premises suitable, the proposed use compatible with the area, and parking and amenity impacts acceptable.

“The total number of proposed residents stated by the agent is four (4) and the bedroom sizes have been considered under the HMO guidance. The application is compliant with criteria 1 of Policy HOU 4 of NAP as the premises is suitable in terms of room sizes for the bedrooms and the ensuites provided for each room. There are also communal lounge and kitchen dining areas which are above the recommended sizes. There are a number of internal alterations proposed.”

“The application is compliant with criteria 3 of Policy HOU 4 of NAP as the external spaces are of a safe and secure design, providing easy and convenient access to a rear yard, bin storage and parking on street and nearby. There is currently a rear yard area located immediately to the rear of the application property. This space is secure with a high gate. The yard is currently an unused stoned area.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Concerns included waste, safety, parking, traffic, noise, overcrowding, antisocial behaviour, services, loss of family housing and HMO overprovision.

“Health and safety; and HMO size requirements Increased traffic and parking issues…”

“Concerns regarding the above issues are addressed in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.36.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector was invited but did not attend, while the application’s supporter said the proposal would bring a disused town-centre property back into use.

What members debated

Members discussed the HMO threshold, possible former family use, fire safety, objections and whether the proposal harmed the area’s character.

“Councillor Anderson noted that there is one other HMO in the street and asked how this worked with the 20% threshold. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application was judged against policy HOU4 for houses in multiple occupation, which does not contain a specific threshold and went on to clarify that there is currently no threshold set for the Borough.”

“The Development Management (local applications) Manager provided some commentary on all criteria needing to be met in Policy HOU 4 and that non- compliance with one would be sufficient to refuse. He advised that if it is felt that the proposal has an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area, that would be sufficient for the Committee to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The vote

The refusal motion received four votes for and nine against, with no abstentions.

“Alderman Boyle stated that she disagreed with the refusal reason that it will have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area, as she lives in the area and feels that the development would be fitting.”

“The Chair put the motion to the Committee to vote. Members voted For; Members voted Against, 0 Member Abstained The Chair declared the Motion lost and application approved.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved planning permission, despite disagreeing with the officer recommendation’s stated reasons and guidance.

“RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and disagrees 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…”

Minutes

Permission conditions

Permission required the development to begin within five years and the approved landscaping works to be completed and retained.

“The development hereby permitted must be begun within five years from the date of this permission.”

“All hard and/or soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details on Block Plan Drawing 01/2. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.”

Officer report