This application was reported to the Committee on 13 February 2020. As Members resolved that they were minded to refuse the proposal, the application was deferred with the Committee requesting that a report be brought back which addresses these concerns and provide further consideration of potential reasons for refusal.

Reasons for refusal were now included and outlined as “impact on residential amenity, due to construction work and in particular noise and disturbance and the loss of use of the lift for a period of time. Loss of part of the green area fronting Palatine Road.”

Riverside Lodge is residential complex on Palatine Road consisting of 34 flats split into two blocks. Block A is 4 storeys in height (flat nos. 1 to 16), while block B is a part 4/part 5 storey building housing flat nos. 17-34. The ground floor levels of both buildings are elevated as they sit on top of undercroft parking facilities for 34 cars. To the front of the blocks is a hard surfaced area used for servicing and parking, while at the rear there is a communal lawned area. To the west of the site is a wooded area and beyond that stands the Green Belt. To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Palatine Road, stands a modern residential development set behind a Site of Biological Interest. To the north of Block B is another strip of woodland, beyond which stands three detached dwellinghouses. Riverside Court, a 3 storey residential complex of 24 flats lies to the south of Block A. The row of trees along the rear boundary of the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order and the site is located within Flood Zone 3.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that issues had been addressed since the previous minded to refuse decision.

A local resident, objecting to the application, spoke of the flood risk, loss of grassy area to support a proposed car park but expressed her highest concern at the temporary loss of the use of the lift within the building and disabled parking bays if the development were to be agreed.

Councillors Kilpatrick and Leech, representing Didsbury West Ward, were present to address the Committee with their objections. Councillor Kilpatrick spoke of his concern with regard to the current residents and that those with mobility issues would be the most affected by the loss of use of the lift and parking areas.

Councillor Leech thanked the Committee for their decision of minded to refuse in February 2020 and highlighted the loss of a fire escape and loss of parking, more than likely leading people to park illegally on the main road, both leading to safety risks. Councillor Leech made further comment that a condition which allowed the building to be erected in the past would have to be broken in order to carry out this development and questioned the initial decision which allowed the development of these residential premises in 2014.

The Planning Officer made comment with regard to the flood risk that the Council’s Flood Risk Management Team and Environment Agency were satisfied with regard to the development and stated that a minded to refuse decision could not be based on temporary measures.

The Head of Planning then made comment around the report containing agreeable reasons for a minded to refuse decision.

Councillor Andrews then gave his minded to refuse decision based proposed car parking, as set out in the report at page 132. Councillor White seconded this vote.

The Committee voted eleven Minded to Refuse decisions and one abstention.

Decision

Minded to Refuse as the proposed car park forms a visually intrusive feature and will result in the loss of part of an existing landscaped strip to the detriment of visual amenity and landscaped character of this part of Palatine Road, contrary to Policy DM1 in the Manchester Core Strategy.