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

A copy of the late representations received had been circulated in advance of the meeting regarding application 135235/FO/2022.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2022

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2022 as a correct record.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that presented an application proposing an erection of a five-storey (ground floor plus 4) building to provide 6 no. residential apartments (Use Class C3) (5 x 1 bed (1 person)) and (1 x 2 bed duplex (4 person)) above ground floor commercial unit (Class E), private roof terrace for the top floor duplex apartment, cycle parking (6 x spaces), refuse and plant room.

The proposal would create 6 homes in a building that has been reduced in height

from 8 to 5 storeys. 17 letters of objection had been received from 2 rounds of

notifications, 14 in respect of the original 8 storey proposal.

The planning officer stated that a condition is recommended requiring the provision of a disabled parking should the Committee approve the application.

No objector to the application attended or made any representations.

The applicant (Manchester One) addressed the Committee. In response to initial reservations, the proposal had been reduced from 8 storeys down to 4 and 5 storeys. There had also been an addendum to design and access to reduce overlooking, housing, rights of access and escape routes provided during construction. Manchester One had also worked with Koffee Pot to minimise disruption to their business. The company, part of Northern Group, had 15/20 years of experience in the Ancoats area redeveloping many sites, all of which had been retained and not sold on. Northern Group also had full control over lettings with the latest development being fully occupied.

Councillor Lyons said that he welcomed the revised height, that a S106 is always desirable but added that this was a small site and therefore understood the need for compromise. The development would suit the Northern Quarter area, 1 bed properties were much needed in parts of the city and Councillor Lyons concluded by stating that this was a good application overall.

Councillor Flanagan queried a comment in the report regarding disabled access that said the “scheme could be adapted.”

The Planning Officer responded and said the wording was clumsy, confirming that the whole scheme was accessible and space standards compliant.

Councillor Lovecy stated that she was pleased to see the revised scheme after the initial, larger application and moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve.

Councillor Lyons seconded the proposal.

Councillor Leech asked about if the disabled parking bay noted was site specific.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the space would be available for all blue badge users and clarified this would be secured through a planning condition.

Councillor Andrews requested confirmation that the recommendation to Approve took this into account and this was confirmed by the Planning Officer.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to conditions and for the reasons detailed in the reports submitted.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that presented an application for the partial demolition of existing buildings (68-70 Oldham Street) (retention of facades to both 68 & 70 Oldham Street and internal floors of 68 Oldham Street), and erection of new 10 storey building (plus plant room) to incorporate retained elements, removal of roof and conversion of

existing warehouse building (61 Spear Street) with 3 storey rooftop extension to create aparthotel (sui generis) and ground floor commercial uses (use class E)((a), (b), (c), (e) and (g) only.

The Planning Officer recommended a further condition (as per the previous application) in relation to the provision of a disabled parking bay on Houldsworth Street. Taken with the previous scheme this would secure 2 disabled bays in this location. Also, there was a duplication of condition 44 in the printed report. The Planning Officer confirmed that the final condition and not the penultimate condition that would stand if the Committee were to approve the application.

No objector to the application attended or made any representations.

The applicant addressed the Committee. He stated the company were the owners of the site and had worked within the property market in London and Manchester for 20 years. They had been searching for a hotel opportunity in Manchester and the applicant felt that this development would boost the area. The site had presented some challenges which included retaining the heritage associated with existing buildings but this had been achieved using Manchester based consultants to do this. Together, they had achieved the goal of retaining all features. The scheme took account of carbon reduction ambitions. He also stated that they were keen to integrate with the area and had assessed noise from the adjoining public house The Castle which had live music, confirming that the scheme was no threat to this or other live music venues in the area. If the Committee were to approve the application today, then work would begin immediately with a view to opening in 2026.

Councillor Flanagan raised a question regarding the disabled parking bay and proximity to the hotel. He felt that the hotels entrance down a side street would become easily blocked and asked how a disabled client may exit a vehicle and take any luggage without causing the road to become blocked.

The Planning Officer stated that there would be a loading area on Warwick Street for this purpose.

Councillor Flanagan remained concerned as this is a very narrow street that may not solve this problem.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there is also to be an entrance on Oldham Street.

Councillor Flanagan felt that this was close to the corner and there needed to be a priority for quick and easy access for disabled users and asked if this could be delivered via a conversation between Planning Officers and the applicant.

The Director of Planning stated that they would discuss this and find a way to cover this matter. If members were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that related to the erection of a Part 8 and Part 6 storey building to form 76 no. residential apartments (Class C3) with ground floor medical centre use (Class E(e)) with associated car parking provided on a two-tiered decked car park,

landscaping and infrastructure. The application site currently comprises overgrown scrub and trees, there is a small single storey services building on the site which is redundant. Prior to the sites clearance in the early 2000s, it formed part of the wider Withington Hospital site, the redevelopment of which has taken place over a period of 20 years to form a mix of houses, apartments, commercial uses and more recently the construction of a new secondary school. The application site is the last parcel of cleared former hospital land that remains. It has previously been subject of planning applications for redevelopment for offices and car parking, none of these proposals were developed. The proposals were subject to notification by way of 827 letters to nearby addresses, site notice posted at the site and advertisement in the Manchester Evening News.

Following an amendment to the proposal to include a screen to the proposed tiered

car park a further period of renotification was undertaken.

In response to the notification process 185 comments were received, 182 of these

objected to the proposals.

An objector attended and addressed the Committee on behalf of residents at Didsbury Point. The objector stated that they were not opposed to the development of this land but had serious reservations about the impact of increased traffic, scale and density of this scheme. The issue was raised of the 6-8 storey buildings having no outdoors area or balconies and no control over prices. The 2 storey car park would have an impact on Clearwater Drive, adding disturbance and light pollution. A 5 metre boundary wall challenged in that, if residents were to erect a wall of this size themselves, it was felt that the Council would object. Concern over the commercial space earmarked for a Medical Centre was raised as residents worried what may be placed there if not used as presented in the report. 60 car parking spaces were not enough for 200 residents and this would impact on the local area with parking issues and pollution. The Highways team should reconsider their findings within the report as the findings were taken during February 2021, during lockdown when traffic and Didsbury High School was much quieter. Regarding traffic issues, there have already been problems whereby bin lorries and fire engines were unable to gain access. 1 bike storage space per dwelling was also seen as too little and would encourage people to use the road to walk. Didsbury High School will soon have a 6^th form college on site, further increasing drop offs and pick-ups. There had been other applications, recommended for refusal for insufficient parking reasons. The objector concluded by requesting a site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.