The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licencing is enclosed.

A copy of the late representations that were received in respect of applications (126431/FO/2020, 125596/FO/2019, 127053/FO/2020 and 126435/FO/2020), since the agenda was issued, was circulated.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2020.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2020 as a correct record subject to the inclusion of Councillors Riasat and Watson in the list of apologies given at the meeting.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The application proposes a multi-use arena comprising 68,608 sqm of floorspace with ancillary retail, food and beverage uses.

This 4.46 hectare site is used as a 500 space overspill car park for events at the Etihad stadium. The site is secured with a mesh fence on all sides and contains a number of self-seeded trees and shrubs. Its topography is relatively flat with a gentle slope from south to north before the site drops steeply down to the Ashton Canal. 

The site is bounded by Joe Mercer Way (an elevated pedestrian walkway connecting to the Etihad Stadium) which separates the site from the Manchester Tennis and Football Centre located further west, Alan Turing Way, a four lane road with segregated cycle lanes is to the east with the Ashton Canal and the Etihad Metrolink stop to the south. 

The applicant’s aim is to develop the best arena in Europe in Manchester that would attract the world’s top events and shows. They aim to set new standards in terms of arena design and environmental sustainability. 

The design would be unique and enable the main auditorium to operate in a variety of different seating modes and host different entertainment and leisure events including music, sport, performances, awards ceremonies and other live entertainment.  Its capacity would normally be 20,000 but could be extended to 23,500 for events where a centre stage configuration is used. 

The arena would host events on scheduled days throughout the week and year.  The operational strategy could occasionally result in events taking place at the same time or same day as football events at the Etihad Stadium.  The associated impacts of this are considered in detail in the report. 

The auditorium would be custom designed for a much more compact, flexible and intimate configuration compared to comparable capacity venues. The lower tier of the seating bowl would have retractable seating that could be configured in a variety of ways in maximise the spectator experience. The upper tier would project and be lower to the heart of the auditorium to enable a more intimate spectator experience.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to present the Item.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that additional information had been provided within the ‘Supplementary Information on Applications’ document, previously circulated. Reference was made to representations received from the Manchester Arena and Printworks to have the application referred to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to decide whether the application should be called in for determination, if the Committee was Minded to Approve. The Planning Officer reported that all aspects of the scheme had been addressed and this was detailed within the planning report. Reference was made to a representation received from the Executive Vice President of ASM Global (operating company of Manchester Arena), regarding the impact of the development on the Manchester Arena, and which requested the Committee to consider the impact of the application in line with the concerns of other city centre stakeholders. In addition it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

This application is for a proposal comprising 3 residential tower buildings of 37, 18 and 26 storeys above two 6 storey podiums on Dantzic Street to form 634 homes.  611 would be apartments with 13 townhouses and 10 maisonettes.  35% would be one bedroom, 55% two bedroom and 10% 3 bedroom offering a range of choice and accommodation would be attractive to families as well as smaller households. 

The tower A, at 37 storeys, is at the junction of Gould Street and Dantzic Street followed by the tower B at 18 storey tower and the tower C at 26 storey tower.  The distances between the towers has been maximised for privacy and to maximise views.  A lower level block, 6 storey block on Dantzic Street and Bromley Street would include townhouses, maisonettes and commercial uses creating front doors onto the street.  

Shared indoor and outdoor amenity spaces would be created on two podiums with private and semi-private amenity space and balconies.  Podium A is the south of Bromley Street adjacent to Tower A.  Podium B is located to the east of Bromley Street between towers B and C. 

This 0.97 hectares vacant site is bounded by Dantzic Street, Gould Street, a railway viaduct and a warehouse unit.  It is bisected by Bromley Street which lies in a northwest-southeast orientation. Bromley Street is closed.

The Planning Officer had nothing further to add to the application.

No objector was present at the meeting.

The applicant’s representative spoke to the Committee on the application.

The Chair invited member of the Committee to comment on the application.

Members referred to the design of the proposal and officers were asked if the design was age friendly to enable residents to age in place and officers were asked if the proposal would include a local labour agreement to provide employment opportunities for local people.

The Committee was informed that there are a number of types and styles of accommodation proposed including houses and apartments gardens which would be suitable for all age groups. In addition, the Committee was informed that the S106 agreement did include a local labour agreement.

In welcoming the application the Chair noted that the development would include 20% affordable housing across the development.

Councillor S Ali made a request to move the recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor M Watson.

The Committee supported the recommendation.

Decision

Minded to Approve subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement in relation to affordable housing and the conditions and reasons set out in the report submitted.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

This application relates to a housing-led mixed use development. It involves 410 new dwellings (Class C3) and 744sq.m of commercial floorspace comprising   Class A1 (retail), Class A3 (restaurant/cafe) Class B1 (business/office use), together with recreation open space and landscaping, infrastructure provision and car parking. Following recent changes to planning legislation, the Class A1, A3 and B1 uses now fall within use Class E and the title of the application has been changed accordingly.

There would be a variety of house types ranging in size and design (2 bedroom 4 person, three bedroom 4 person, three bedroom five person and three bedroom six person houses) along with 107 apartments. All would meet the Council’s approved space standards.

The development would include two blocks of apartments located along the south western boundary of the site adjacent to Varley Street, close to the junction with Holland Street, with a further two blocks fronting onto Hulme Hall Lane in proximity to Coleshill Street. The apartment blocks would be part four, part five, and five storeys in height. The rest of the site would then include the dwellinghouses, which would be either 2 or 3 storeys in height.

The layout would be in the form of a gird iron pattern of buildings with the majority of houses facing onto the street (some terraces facing the canal would face onto pedestrian routes which link to the proposed highways). Each would have a small rear garden and access to larger shared courtyard areas which would include some off street parking provision. These areas would be secured,

On street parking controlled by the use of permits is also proposed.

A range of different tenures are included, build to rent and affordable housing being delivered through a registered provider (One Manchester). Overall there would be 36 Shared Ownership, 34 Affordable Rent, 44 rent to buy and 296 Build to Rent

The proposed commercial floorspace would primarily be located at ground floor level within the apartment block fronting onto Hulme Hall, the café element of the scheme would be located at ground level facing onto the canal with a flat above.

As noted there would be a new highway network into and around the site, which would connect Hulme Hall Lane in an east west direction to Varley Street. Car parking has been provided at a provision of 310 parking spaces, 438 cycle spaces and 22 parking spaces for disabled users which are all included within the proposed development. Parking for the most part is in the form of on street bays and would be managed through a residents permit scheme.

Associated landscaping, boundary treatments, new highways with street trees, and significant site remediation is also proposed. The layout of the site incorporates seven key areas of open space each with its own distinct character butwhich would create a chain of practical and useable space for future and existing residents.

The scheme would also necessitate the provision of a number of substations within the overall site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

This application relates to the erection of four two storey houses with associated car parking and landscaping. The application site comprises vacant land (previously used to accommodate residential housing until between 1961 and 1979) measuring 923m² in size.

The land is currently in an unkempt condition, it currently features a number of trees and a significant area of dense vegetation undergrowth, it is located on the west side of Victory Street near to its junction with Claremont Road. The site is located in Moss Side Ward.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to introduce the application. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that additional information had been provided within the ‘Supplementary Information on Applications’ document, previously circulated. There was no further information to present on the application.

There was no objector to the application and the applicant did not attend the meeting.

Councillor M Watson made a request to move the recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor J Flanagan.

Decision

To approve the application, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report submitted and the Late Representations submitted.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The application site relates to the conversion of the existing dwelling to create 2 no. three bedroom dwellings; and the erection of 2 x 4 bedroom dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping.

This application was placed before the Planning and Highways Committee on 27 August 2020 and at that meeting the committee deferred deliberation in order to allow Members to undertake a site visit due to concerns about overdevelopment and the impact on the community from construction vehicles.

The application site measures 1,421m² in size and is located on the western side of Trenchard Drive. It is irregular in shape and consists of nos. 25 and 27/29 Trenchard Drive. No. 25 Trenchard Drive was a former garage that was converted into a dwellinghouse, albeit without the benefit of planning permission, while nos. 27/29 Trenchard Drive, was originally a pair of semi-detached dwellings that was last used as a single residence (now vacant following a fire).

The Committee had undertaken a site visit to view the development site and surrounding area.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that additional information had been provided within the ‘Supplementary Information on Applications’ document, previously circulated.

 An objector to the application addressed the Committee.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application.

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that in response to the objections raised regarding overdevelopment it was necessary to show significant harm the development would cause. The size of the development had been reduced and the properties would have larger gardens with tree planting and eight parking spaces.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment on the application.

Members referred to the site visit and opportunity to view the application site and in doing so supported the application, in view of the changes made by the applicant following consultation with planning officers.

Councillor Y Dar made a request to move the recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor S Ali.

Decision

To approve the application, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report submitted and the Late Representations submitted.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

This application relates to the demolition of 42, 44 and 46 Thomas Street (including 41, 43 and 45 Back Turner Street) to facilitate redevelopment of the wider site under extant planning permission and listed building consent ref: 113475/FO/2016 and 113476/LO/2016.

At its meeting on 27 August 2020 the Committee resolved that it was 'minded to refuse' this application on the basis that the demolition would be contrary to policies on the conservation of historic assets in the city which represent Manchester’s working class heritage. They requested officers to bring a report to the next meeting to address their concerns.

Officers believe that the case setting out why these buildings cannot be retained was clearly set out in the previous report and on that basis they do not believe that a reason for refusal can be substantiated. However, there are policies that seek to protect the historic environment and if Members remain sufficiently concerned about the validity of the case to support the demolition the following reason for refusal is suggested:

The demolition of 42-46 Thomas Street would fail to preserve or enhance the Grade II designated heritage asset causing irreversible harm through the total loss of the buildings which would not meet the tests set out in section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) as a clear and convincing justification for the loss has not been provided and it has not been demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. It is therefore considered to be contrary to Government Guidance contained in Sections 16(2) of (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and The Core Strategy for the City of Manchester, in particular Policy EN3 (Heritage) CC9 (Design and Heritage) and saved policy DC19.1 (Listed Buildings) of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of  Manchester.

Notwithstanding the suggested reason for refusal, for the reasons set out in the remainder of the report, the recommendation of officers is that this application be approved subject referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Arrangements for handling heritage applications – notification to Historic England and National Amenity Societies and the Secretary of State (England) Direction 2015

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to introduce the report. The Committee was advised that the recommendation of planning officers was that the application should be approved, however if it was the Committee’s decision to refuse the application the report provided reasons to support the decision.

No objector attended the meeting.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application.

A ward councillor addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer responded to the issues raised and stated that the buildings were currently in a poor state of repair and it was unlikely that sufficient funds would be available to rescue the buildings and further decline was inevitable. In the current state the buildings had no commercial value.

The invited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

Consideration of this application was deferred at Committee on 27 August 2020.

At its meeting on 30 July 2020 the Committee resolved that it was 'minded to refuse' the application on the grounds that the number of units proposed was too large and it did not provide sufficient parking for disabled people. They requested officers to bring a report to the next meeting to address these concerns.

The site, known as T1, is 0.32 ha and bounded by Water Street, Manchester Goods Yard, and Grape Street.  It is accessed from Water Street and is in use as a construction site for Manchester Goods Yard. The original planning permission (114385/FO/2016) approved the Manchester Goods Yard offices and a residential ‘Tower (T1). Manchester Goods Yard is under construction and this proposal would replace the ‘T1’ element of that permission.

This application would supersede the Tower 1 element of the previous permission with a 32 storey building comprising 390 Co-Living Apartments with 210no. 2-, 3- and 4-bed shared apartments and 180 studios with 870 Bedspaces. There would be ancillary amenity space on four floors consisting of residents’ amenity space, a gym, commercial space, and self-storage. There would be 152 cycle spaces in the building and 40 sheffield stands in the public realm.

Planning Permission has previously been granted for the demolition of all buildings and structures and the erection of a 32 storey residential building comprising 350 homes (Class C3) with retail uses at ground floor (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4); an 8 storey mixed use building comprising workspace (B1), with retail uses (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4) and residential live/work uses; and, the creation of new public realm, landscaping, car and cycle parking, access and other associated works.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to introduce the application.

No objector was present at the meeting.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment on the application.

Members of the Committee referred to the issues previously raised by the Committee regarding the scale of the development and the untested concept of co-living in Manchester and the space provided. Reference was also made to the provision of disabled parking and the necessity of ensuring provision is available for residents and visitors without charging at a prohibited level.

The Planning Officer noted the comments made and explained that the units within the development that could be permanent homes do meet space standards. Issues relating to additional parking would be included in the S106 agreement and conditions attached to the approval notice to the applicant.       

Councillor S Ali made a request to move the recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor N Ali.

Decision

Approve subject to:

·         a s.106 covering occupancy, long-term management, payment of Council Tax, reduced rental provision and waste management. 

·         Inclusion in the s106 agreement of 35 disabled parking spaces for residents and visitors that are not charged at a prohibited level.

(Councillor Monaghan did not take part in the consideration of the application.)

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

Consideration of this application was deferred at Committee on 27 August 2020.

At its meeting on 30 July 2020 the Committee resolved that it was 'minded to refuse' the application on the grounds that the number of units proposed was too large and it did not provide sufficient parking for disabled people. They requested officers to bring a report to the next meeting to address these concerns.

The site, known as T1, is 0.32 ha and bounded by Water Street, Manchester Goods Yard, and Grape Street.  It is accessed from Water Street and is in use as a construction site for Manchester Goods Yard. The original planning permission (114385/FO/2016) approved the Manchester Goods Yard offices and a residential ‘Tower (T1). Manchester Goods Yard is under construction and this proposal would replace the ‘T1’ element of that permission.

This application would supersede the Tower 1 element of the previous permission with a 32 storey building comprising 390 Co-Living Apartments with 210no. 2-, 3- and 4-bed shared apartments and 180 studios with 870 Bedspaces. There would be ancillary amenity space on four floors consisting of residents’ amenity space, a gym, commercial space, and self-storage. There would be 152 cycle spaces in the building and 40 sheffield stands in the public realm.

Planning Permission has previously been granted for the demolition of all buildings and structures and the erection of a 32 storey residential building comprising 350 homes (Class C3) with retail uses at ground floor (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4); an 8 storey mixed use building comprising workspace (B1), with retail uses (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4) and residential live/work uses; and, the creation of new public realm, landscaping, car and cycle parking, access and other associated works.

The Chair invited the Planning Officer to introduce the application.

No objector was present at the meeting.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment on the application.

Members of the Committee referred to the issues previously raised by the Committee regarding the scale of the development and the untested concept of co-living in Manchester and the space provided. Reference was also made to the provision of disabled parking and the necessity of ensuring provision is available for residents and visitors without charging at a prohibited level.

The Planning Officer noted the comments made and explained that the units within the development that could be permanent homes do meet space standards. Issues relating to additional parking would be included in the S106 agreement and conditions attached to the approval notice to the applicant.       

Councillor S Ali made a request to move the recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor N Ali.

Decision

Approve subject to:

·         a s.106 covering occupancy, long-term management, payment of Council Tax, reduced rental provision and waste management. 

·         Inclusion in the s106 agreement of 35 disabled parking spaces for residents and visitors that are not charged at a prohibited level.

(Councillor Monaghan did not take part in the consideration of the application.)