The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licencing will follow.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2019.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations as circulated.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

The application related to the erection of a part 2/ part 3 storey terrace of four dwellings (3 bedrooms) and one detached, 2 storey dwelling (3 bedrooms), following demolition of existing commercial buildings and garages.

The Committee had been Minded to Refuse the application at the previous meeting held on 14 March 2019 and amendments to the proposal were submitted in order to address the concerns that were expressed by the Committee.

A member proposed that the Committee undertake a site visit for a better understanding of the site and impacts arising from the development.

The Chair put the proposal for a site visit to the Committee and it was agreed.

Decision

To defer consideration of the matter for a site visit.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

The application related to the proposed conversion of existing loft space with rear dormer extension and erection of a three storey rear extension to create 3 no. Class C3a additional apartments (11 no. apartments in total) with associated elevational alterations to the existing building, the reconfiguration of external space to form amenity space, car parking, bin storage, cycle storage, landscaping and new boundary treatments

The Committee welcomed the application and the changes and improvements made to the proposed development. Officers were questioned on the term ‘sustainable modes’ under the heading Highway Services of the planning report and it was reported that this referred to walking and cycling. Reference was also made to the description given of a ‘range of public transport facilities’ with point made that the local area is served by a single bus service which has a limited frequency. Officers noted the comments made.

The Committee referred to the landscaping to the rear of the site and what arrangements were in place to ensure that the agreed layout works are carried out.

Officers reported that the site layout plan had been agreed with the developer and this included a timescale for the completion of the works, as indicated, under Condition 4 of the application report.

Decision

To approve the application, subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report submitted.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

The application related to the erection of a part two, part three, part four and part five storey building to provide 8 ground floor A1 retail/ A2 financial and professional services at ground floor and 35no. apartments above with associated access, parking and landscaping arrangements.

A member proposed that the Committee undertake a site visit to gain a better understanding of the traffic management issues involved in the proposal.

The Chair put the proposal for a site visit to the Committee and it was agreed.

Decision

To defer consideration of the application for a site visit.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

There will be a site visit for members of the Committee with the arrangements as follows:-

Meet at the entrance of the Town Hall, Lloyd Street at 10.30am

Arrive at the site at 10.45am

Leave site at approximately 11.10am.

The Committee undertook a site visit in the morning prior to the start of the meeting.

The application related to the erection of a twelve-storey purpose built student accommodation building comprising 97 units with roof top terrace and associated landscape and highway works, following demolition of existing structures.

A local resident spoke in objection to the proposal and said that the development proposed would, due to its scale, reduce daylight and cause the loss amenity to the adjacent properties due to overlooking of neighbouring properties.

The applicant was present at the meeting and spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Annette Wright spoke as Ward Councillor in opposition to the application and raised concerns on the impact the development would have on the local community and the loss of amenity to local residents, in particular, the loss of light.

Officers reported that it had been recognised that the development would result in a degree of impact, loss of light and loss of amenity and this had been addressed within the report to the Committee.

The Committee referred to the site visit that had taken place and raised concerns regarding the scale of the development and how this would impact on the local community, the loss of amenity and light to adjacent properties. Other concerns were raised regarding the knock on effect from a lack of parking in the area resulting from residents of the proposed development with cars and the potential for anti-social behaviour from activities taking place on the roof terrace.

Officers reported that car parking controls were already in place in the locality and it was considered unlikely that students residing in the proposed development would have a vehicle due to the close proximity of the city centre and university campuses. The use of a management plan would control activities at the development and limit the risk of anti-social behaviour. The potential disturbance from noise levels produced by residents on the roof top terrace had been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health officers and were considered to be acceptable due to the height and location of the roof top terrace, combined with the level of background noise.

Decision

Minded to refuse the application due to concerns expressed regarding the negative impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties resulting in a loss of amenity, overlooking and reduction in daylight.

(The Head of Planning has been requested to submit a report which addresses the concerns raised and whether there are reasons for refusal which could be sustained.)

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

The application related to an outline planning application for the erection of 57 dwellings, with all matters reserved, except for access, with associated access off Cringle Road, car parking, landscaping and other associated works.

Officers reported that a previous application for planning permission had been refused by the Committee on 24 August 2017 and was the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal was subsequently dismissed. From the findings of the appeal hearing, the Planning Inspector had considered that there was very limited recreational activity associated with the site which also held no formal recreational status and had not been designated within the City Council’s ‘open space study’ in 2009. The Planning Inspector had considered that there would be no harm to the landscaped character of the wider area as a result of development at the application site. The reason for the decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the grounds that there had been no suitable mitigation agreed between the Council and the applicant to minimise the wider impacts on Highfield Country Park. On this basis the proposal was deemed to be in conflict with policies EN9 and EN10 of the Core Strategy and saved policy LL3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Local residents from the area attended the meeting and a spokesperson addressed the Committee on their behalf to explain their objection to the proposal. The spokesperson said that the ecology report which informed the planning report was based on incorrect information and bats have been regularly spotted on the site. Also, none of the buildings on the site had been accessed as part of the ecology survey to check for the presence of protected species. An independent ecology report produced by a bat specialist had suggested that the buildings on the site had moderate potential to support roosting bats. The spokesperson referred to Planning Inspectors report and did not accept the suggestion that the site should not be regarded as a recreational facility as described in Policy EN 10 of the Manchester Core Strategy 2012. The spokesperson stated that the community had regularly accessed the farm area but following the agreement made with the site owner and the developer involved in the application, the farm had been purposely run down over a three-year period. The spokesperson said that the Inspector had based their decision on the current state of the site and had not recognised the site as a valuable community facility which was regularly accessed by the local community. The spokesperson stated that the Planning Inspector had concluded that there would be significant harm to the country park as result of the development. Also, the sale of the land was believed to be contrary to government guidance on the sale of land by a non-profit organisation that had received contributions from the local community. The spokesperson referred to the existing problems caused by traffic congestion in the area and the impact that the development would have on the health and wellbeing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

The application related to an outline application for development comprising of the erection of part two storey, part three storey social club with associated car parking, landscaping, public realm and other associated works following demolition of the existing social club and bowling green; and an outline application (with all matters reserved accept for access) for the erection of 74 residential dwellinghouses.

The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee referred to the loss of sports facilities from the site and how this would be addressed through alternative local provision. In addition, officers were asked what arrangements were in place for the drainage of the site as part of the development.

Officer’s reported that the loss of the sports pitch on the site was considered in conjunction with the Council’s Sports Pitch Strategy in determining what alternative provision would be available. A financial contribution of £200,000 from the developer had been agreed for use in upgrading other sports facilities in the local area. The proposal for a financial contribution had been endorsed by Sport England in view of the loss of the provision.

Decision

Minded to approve, subject to the signing of a legal agreement in order to secure monies associated with mitigating against the loss of the sports facilities together with securing 20% on site affordable housing.