Two HMOs 'for doctors' approved, despite concerns

TWO separate applications for changes of use of a dwelling into a house in multiple occupation have been approved by the Council’s Planning Committee.

Both are from the same applicant at Bush Manor and Millhouse Dale.

The proposals were said to provide rented accommodation for NHS staff working at Antrim Area Hospital.

In the Bush Manor case, 13 neighbouring properties were notified of the application, and 114 letters of objection and one letter of support were received.

Concerns included parking and traffic concerns; noise and disturbance; crime and safety concerns; strain on public services; waste and litter; a negative impact on character/community cohesion; overdevelopment; impact on property values; overcrowding; vermin; scale of extension; an error with the application form; acting without planning permission; legal oversight of future tenants; anti-social behaviour; precedent for future HMOs; and loss of open space..

The proposal includes the conversion of the existing living room into a fourth bedroom.

Meanwhile, regarding the property at Millhouse Dale, six neighbouring properties were notified of the application and 29 letters of objection were received, with broadly similar concerns, including ‘safety’ and room sizing issues.

Ballyclare DUP rep Jeannie Archibald-Brown declared a conflict of interest in both applications, as her employer, DUP South Antrim MLA Trevor Clarke has publicly spoken out against HMOs, and left the chamber.

Azman Khairuddin of Big Design Architecture, spoke on behalf of the applicant for both items.

He said: “The applicant apologies for not requesting speaking rights, he is a locum doctor working at a radiology department in Scotland.

“Officers have previously come to the same conclusion in a similar area at Bush Manor, and there haven’t been any issues. This application seeks to meet urgent need of Antrim Area Hospital, which is experiencing a severe shortage of accommodation for staff doing locum work, who reside in England, travel to the hospital and go back via a taxi, cook their meal and go to sleep.

“They go home at weekends, sometimes every other Friday night, to take break at home, and they are away until another six week stint.

“Officers have recognised no intensification of use and no impact on this quiet residential area.”

UUP Councillor Robert Foster said that ‘a couple of things in the presentation are at odds with the submission to the Planning Portal’.

He said that timings when occupants were said to be in Northern Ireland and going home were different, that there were references to walking to work and also to having two vehicles at the site and there could be issues over parking.

He said that no drainage or surface water assessment had been supplied and that he wasn’t aware that the other property at Bush Manor had been operating without any issues as he ‘wasn’t aware that there was a licence to operate as an HMO yet’.

He also expressed concern with ‘taking away a large living area’.

Mr Khairuddin said that an existing garden room was ‘significant in size’ and slightly larger than the living room.

He said that people generally went home for a week between six-week stints, sometimes five days.

Councillor Foster asked if the garden room was less than 14 square metres.

Mr Khairuddin said he couldn’t comment without the CAD drawing handy, to which Councillor Foster countered that the agent was ‘an experienced architect’ and that the visuals provided were to scale.

The agent said that the other property at Bush Manor had two tenants making use of the bedrooms, who were local workers at the hospital. He agreed that there was no licence at the other property, which was legal as there were only two people, not related, living there.

Alliance Alderman Tom Campbell reminisced on how he was once the occupant of HMO as a student, adding that it was ‘not a prestigious building, not maintained in a wonderful way’.

He pointed out that the concept of an HMO not a new one and existed within religious communities, and ‘plenty of students’.

Mr Khairuddin said: “I totally agree with that. Certainly, I can speak from my own experience of measuring up these buildings, in order to produce these drawings, one of the people living there was at work, the other very kindly got out of bed so I could measure the bedroom. I have measured many houses, with busy family life going on around it, I have not measured a house where there was someone in situ that was just so quiet.”

He added: “This place is so quiet, more like a temporary place, just to cook, relax, and get back to work that is how people get on.”

Alderman Campbell joked: “When I was a student, I don't think I would have come out of bed.”

He also asked if it could be used for students in future.

The agent said: “On one hand it can’t be stopped in legislation, but it is one of only a few residences in such close proximity to Antrim Area Hospital. The NHS is under strain, when people come over they need somewhere to stay, the applicant had his own added stress in finding somewhere to stay.”

Councillor Foster asked Principal Planner Barry Diamond why NI Water had not been consulted over drainage or waste water, and asked if the parking was not substandard, if the property was being treated like a hotel, with one space per person living in it.

He also said it was within guidelines for an HMO to have a living area of a certain size per occupant and he was of the opinion that the living area was too small.

“Another bedroom is intensification on the property, there is nothing to say there won’t be two people in that room.”

Mr Diamond said that as there was no external development, the parking areas were on asphalt, and there were no external extensions there should bee no increased surface water run-off.

He said that the general requirement for a drainage assesssment was a 100sqm hardstanding or 10 dwellings or more.

He said there was no additional toilet or shower facility and that NI Water ‘can't control how busy a household is’.

“It could be four adults who are not a family, or four adults as a family, and with additional waste water in terms of additional utility, NI Water has very little remit but we are not trying to make a connection. I do acknowledge intensification, but we can’t deal with how busy a household is, that is not what planning is there for.”

Mr Diamond said that living space was ‘not written into the plan strategy’, and reminded Councillor Foster that council recently decided against a policy on HMOs.

He said: “We had a discussion, we would need to identify an issue before we formulate a policy. Just because you get planning permission, doesn't mean you will get (an HMO) licence. Planning isn’t there to duplicate the standards of a policy, in absence of a policy. We look for harm, if there’s a harm, there can be a recommendation to refuse.”

He said that DFI ‘is taking the stance of the worst case scenario’ in that an HMO operates like a hotel.

Mr Diamond added: “It's not, it’s someone's home, albeit for a short time, they don’t treat it like a hotel, we can't deal with only the hospital, it might be for students, who can treat it like a home for a year or two years.

“To treat it like hotel is not accurate. We have taken the position as officers as it’s more like a house, a family with four children could occupy it in the same manner - going from a three bedroom to a four bedroom, the committee might decide intensification.

“It has to lead to a harm, it has to have an adverse impact on residential amenity, noise, or other public harm.”

Councillor Foster said that it ‘seems ludicrous that we could pass an HMO which doesn’t meet the standards that an HMO operates on’, adding: “If NI Water has nothing to say, it has nothing to say, but it should be consulted.”

He said there was ‘too much conjecture’ and that the officers were putting ‘so much weight in the report to what the applicant says it will be used for’.

“It’s an HMO. In six weeks time it could be four students with four cars. I don’t know why you are putting so much weight into it being beside the hospital.”

Mr Diamond said the report was required to put forward the case made by the applicant and the objectors.

Councillor Foster replied: “We could pass something here tonight which could never meet standards.”

Airport Sinn Fein Councillor Anne Marie Logue asked if there were any concerns, the application could be re-assessed after five years.

Mr Diamond said that licencing was outside his remit and he had no decision-making power.

DUP Councillor Sam Flanagan noted that, in the report, it was said that an excessive number of HMOs may have a detrimental effect, but agreed that the property was beside the hospital, which was in imminent need.

He asked: “In lieu of a policy, is there any advice? One more is an increase, at what point does that criteria change?”

Mr Diamond said that harm needed to be caused in terms of amenity, noise, increased waste generation or parking, and that accumulatively, that could create an issue.

He said that Belfast City Council had an ‘arbitrary figure’ of no more than 10% of HMOs on any one street, to prevent ‘numerical swamping’, particularly on a ‘long street’ such as the Ormeau Road.

“This comes down to judgement, we must look for an adverse harm. A bedroom isn’t a low habitation room, it is habitated at a much greater level if someone resides there. In any refusal, we have to demonstrate a harm.”

DUP Councillor Alison Bennington said that like Alderman Campbell, she shared an HMO in the university area ‘many years ago’.

“There wasn’t the same fire regulations or concerns as there are now,” she said.

She asked if it was possible to revoke planning permission if standards were not met. Mr Diamond said that the NI Fire and Rescue Service would engage their legislation to bring someone into compliance.

“It is not within my area of expertise, it’s a fire certification issue and a licencing issue, not a planning issue.”

He said that the committe adjudicated over the planning application and was ‘part of the process, not the whole process’.

“There are other obstacles and hurdles to run an HMO.

“If planning permission was refused, and there was a breach of planning control our enforcement team would get involved, there is a licencing team for HMOs, run by Belfast City Council, who have to be informed, and if there are other breaches then you inform their statutory bodies.”

Airport Alderman Matthew Magill of the DUP asked about the amenity of the residents of the property and neighbours.

“The bedroom is on the ground floor, it is irregular to be fronting onto a road with such a large window, for general amenity and privacy.”

Mr Diamond said that it was traditionally unusual to have a bedroom at ground floor in a house, but not in an apartment building.

“If it is acceptable in an apartment building, why not in a dwelling?”

He said it could be argued that turning a living room into a fourth bedroom does not cause any harm to amenity.

Dunsilly Sinn Fein Councillor Henry Cushinan said that if there were any problems with noise and cars, could council rescind planning permission.

Mr Diamond repeated that it would be steering towards a licencing matter.

“There is one condition with a time limit, members can decide an additional condition if that is appropriate, that planning permission can be revoked, but it must be in the public interest as you are liable to compensation from the injured party.”

Alderman Campbell proposed in favour of the recommendation to approve planning permission, adding ‘we need to concentrate on what is in our remit’.

This was seconded by Sinn Fein Airport councillor Anne Marie Logue.

The proposal was passed five for, four against, including Councillor Foster, Alderman Magill and DUP colleague Councillor Sam Flanagan, as well as Chair, Sinn Fein Councillor Rosie Kinnear.

Millhouse Dale

The next proposal was for the apartment at Millhouse Dale.

The owner and leaseholder of the flat below said that she ‘strongly objected’ to the proposal, for its financial impact, the harm to residential amenity, potential lease breach and fire safety reasons.

The resident said that the leasehold was granted for a private family home and a change of use would be a ‘clear breach of lease terms’.

“None of the leaseholders were informed.” she claimed.

She said that permission for an HMO was ‘rejected by the management company’ and raised concerns about fire safety.

“As a resident directly below, the leasehold insurance policy is based on a private dwelling and the cost is split between all six of us, this will raise the premium and create a financial burden.

“There are already serious parking issues. We each have one full parking space, people are already parking on the path, which is causing issues.

“In reference to the hospital, it is irrelevant. It could be four students, with the door at the bottom opening and closing all night. This is a peaceful residential building and this would change this nature and set a precedent, there are legal issues and this will create over-occupation of a small building.”

Councillor Foster said that if a family occupied a dwelling and there was a noise complaint, there was a single point of contact, and adults working out of hours could be moving around in the middle of the night and early hours of the morning.

He asked the resident to elaborate about parking, and she explained that there were eight spaces for the six apartments, which were already insufficient, with people parking on the footpath, creating low visibility and endangering children playing on the street and at a nearby green area.

Mr Khairuddin spoke again on behalf of the applicant, saying: “Lots if issues raised apply here as well.”

He said that while it was a slightly different scenario, an apartment block at Millhouse Glen was approved as an HMO in 2014.

The agent said that ‘next to a big open space there is also an area of communal car parking, which is in walking distance, a stone’s throw.

He said: “It is also helpful for the committee to be aware, that a licence is required for more than two people unrelated to one another in a property rented out to individuals. Presently, there are already two tenants legally making use of premises in this apartment, the applicant is not applying for another bedroom, but applying to make it legal for the use of a third person to use a bedroom already there, we are not aware of any complaints with the two people who are living there at the moment.”

He added that it was worth mentioning that ‘communal space is irrelevant to the other case, as there is only one more person.”

Councillor Foster asked for clarification about how many people were currently living in the property at Millhouse and how many were planned.

Mr Khairuddin said: “There is no additional bedroom. There will be two more people living upstairs, there is one there, there will be two more.” but acknowledged that four people could live in the apartment.

Councillor Foster said that the parking report was ‘full of conjecture’ and said that the parking was substandard. He said that there were different regulations and living space requirements for an open plan layout.

The resident tried to re-enter the discussion to ask a question but was told that she could not by the chair.

Councillor Foster said that the apartments had been sold and marketed as residential family properties and that there would be ‘a complete change in noise demographic with people coming and going at all hours.

“I am glad to hear that they are doctors, I might get an appointment now, it might get the waiting list down at Antrim Area Hospital.” he retorted.

“These issues are not inconsequential. The parking is substantard for four people living here, this is a business, it is an HMO and taking rent.”

Mr Diamond said: “We have no control over who the occupant will be, their employment, what time they get up to go to work. When we look at an HMO we can’t look at the worst case scenario or through rose tinted glasses. They may but they get on, it is like a dwelling, it is more adults, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get that in a family home.

“For noise, in refusing, (objectors) have to give evidence why it would result in noise that’s different than in a family home.”

He agreed that the assigned parking spaces would not meet the standards for a hotel, as indicated by the DFI: “But we do not look at this as a hotel, but closer to a family home than a hotel.”

He said that each apartment had 1.5 spaces as opposed to 2.5 for hotel standards, plus a mix of communal or on-street parking.

“Like the last case, we look for the harm and say, is it adverse, significant and likely to impact on the amenity by change of use?”

Councillor Foster said: “This is not a mother and father and two kids. This is four distinct families with no other areas to park in, an area on the street impinges on the community.

“There will be noise from four individual adults, with no point of contact, to me it operates more like a hotel or B and B, it’s transient, than a family home.”

Mr Diamond repeated: “We’re not saying it’s a family home, it’s closer to a family home, we are not saying it is one and not saying the committee cannot take a different view.”

Alderman Campbell pointed out that the committee was: “Not supposed to argue for or against a different point of view, one could have argued Foster had already formed a point of view.”

However Councillor Foster said: “We are taking guidance from a senior planning officer, I read my reports and make my mind up from what is in front of me.”

Alderman Campbell proposed the recommendation to approve, seconded by Councillor Bennington.

A vote passed by four votes in favour and three against (Councillor Foster, Alderman Magill and DUP Councillor Ben Mallon) with abstentions from Councillors Flanagan and Logue.