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

A copy of the late representations received had been circulated in advance of the meeting regarding applications 135028/FO/2022 & 135029/LO/2022,

135848/FO/2022 and 136171/FO/2023.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2023.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2023 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 for the erection of 14 storey building and the refurbishment of the

existing buildings at 3 Smithy Lane and Carriage Works on Garden Lane / St Mary's

Parsonage with ground floor extension to form office accommodation (Class E) with

front of house and commercial floorspace at ground floor (Class E) with associated

landscaping and other works following demolition of existing buildings at 27-29 King

Street West and the Grade II Listed 31-33 King Street West and link bridge from

Carriage Works on Garden Lane / St Mary's Parsonage to 3 St Mary's Parsonage.

The report further included the application for Listed Building Consent for the

demolition of 31-33 King Street West and the refurbishment of the existing buildings

at 3 Smithy Lane and Carriage Works on Garden Lane / St Mary's Parsonage with

ground floor extension with associated landscaping and other works following

demolition of existing buildings and link bridge from Carriage Works on Garden Lane

/ St Mary's Parsonage to 3 St Mary's Parsonage in association with the erection of

the 14-storey building.

Objections had been received from Historic England and Save Britain’s Heritage

about the loss of 31-33 King Street West and the impact of the new build on the

retained listed buildings and the surrounding Conservation Area.

The report described that the applications would need to be referred to the Secretary

of State for a decision if Members were minded to approve this proposal.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee who spoke in favour of the

applications.

Councillor Curley acknowledged this was a good report; however, he recommended

that the Committee undertake a site visit, referring to the significant proposal that was

being considered by the Committee. He further referenced the need to obtain the

correct balance between conservation, heritage and development key to support

growth for the city. Councillor Hughes seconded this proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to defer the application, to undertake a site visit, to

understand more the implications of this application.

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 for the demolition of 470-472 Moss Lane East and conversion of 466 –

468 Moss Lane East, in order to facilitate the erection of a 7-9 storey building to form

purpose-built student accommodation (sui generis) and provide in total 261 student

bedrooms with a mix of studios and en-suite rooms set within clusters bedrooms.

Listed Building Consent was also sought for internal and external alterations and

extension, in the form of a link building to the Grade II listed 466 to 468 Moss Lane

East to facilitate its conversion to purpose-built student accommodation.

17 individual representations had been received, 12 of which objected and 5 of which

supported the proposed development. Objections had also been received from Platt

Claremont Residents Association, Moss Side Tenants Union, Great Southern to

Western Community Action Network, The Victorian Society and from Councillor Emily

Rowles on behalf of the Moss Side Councillors.

The Committee heard from a resident who spoke on behalf of a number of

neighbourhood and community groups to raise concerns about the application. The

points of objection were in relation to the height of the proposed development and the

impact this would have in terms of the loss on light and privacy to adjacent

properties. She asked if the Committee could visit the site to obtain an appreciation

as to the impact this development would have on neighbouring properties. She

further made reference to the impact that car parking and increased deliveries would

have on the local neighbourhood, and the lack of disabled onsite parking. She

concluded by asking the Committee to reject the application.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee. He stated that this development

would address the need for high quality student accommodation and the site had

been identified to meet demand. He said that the site was located near to the

University campus and a letter of support had been submitted by the University. He

referred to the location of the proposed development and its relationship to public

transport links, commenting that this would negate the need for residents to use cars.

He made reference to the model of the accommodation to be delivered which

included 10% of rooms being offered at an affordable rent for students, the

accessibility of rooms for disabled or mobility impaired students. He said that the site

would benefit from a 24hour concierge and that a management plan would be

devised to facilitate student ‘move in’ and ‘move out’ dates.

The Planning Officer responded to the issue of massing, loss of light and privacy that

had been referred to by the objector, noting that these had been addressed within the

report. He stated that the ornate heritage features of the frontage of the building

would be reinstated and would frame the modern development. He stated that this

was a car free scheme, and this would be a condition of tenancy agreements and the

site would be exempt from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

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 for the erection of a residential development (Use Class C3),

comprising 72 units, along with associated hard and soft infrastructure, access and

associated works following demolition of existing buildings.

The application related to a site of a former day nursey and probation offices and

community centre that had been vacant for several years. The application now under

consideration was for the development of 72 homes (41 apartments and 31 houses).

16 objections had been received.

The applicant addressed the Committee who spoke of the benefits of the proposal.

Noting that the application sought to renovate a site that was currently derelict and

subject to arson and other related anti-social behaviour. In particular he made

reference to the support from local Members and residents to the application. He

further advised that the proposal included six affordable homes on the site and that in

partnership with Arcon Housing a grant application would be made to Homes

England to increase this offer.

The Committee heard from Councillor Ahmed Ali, ward member for Rusholme, who

spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer reiterated that currently the abandoned buildings on the site had

been fire damaged and were subject to anti-social behaviour, adding that the

proposal would improve the site and deliver affordable housing.

Councillor Andrews proposed that the recommendation of Minded to Approve subject

to a legal agreement in respect of affordable housing to be delivered at the site and a

reconciliation clause be moved. Councillor Shaukat Ali seconded this proposal.

Decision

The Committee is Minded to Approve subject to a legal agreement in respect of

affordable housing to be delivered at the site and a reconciliation clause.

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 for a proposal that sought permission for the installation of a rear

dormer together with four rooflights to the front elevation and replacement glazing to

the roof of the existing single storey side and rear extension to provide additional

living accommodation for a family dwellinghouse. The property is not listed, nor is it

located within a conservation area.

Five neighbouring dwellings were notified of the proposed development and eight

letters of objection were received. The key issues raised were concerns relating to

the proposal’s impact upon visual and residential amenity.

The Planning Officer did not have anything to add to the report.

The applicant addressed the Committee who spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Andrews proposed that the recommendation to approve the application be

moved. Councillor Hughes seconded this proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application, for the reasons and subject to

the conditions set out in the officer’s report.

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 proposed the erection of a two-storey rear extension to provide

additional living accommodation. The application site is a semi-detached dwelling

house in use as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) with 5no. bedrooms. The

HMO was registered in 2019 and has been in use as a lawful HMO for at least 10

years. The proposal adds no additional bedrooms and only increases the size of

shared living space and 1no. first floor bedroom.

The proposal was subject to consultation by way of 8 letters to adjacent properties. 2

objections from neighbours were received focussed on the perceived anti-social

behaviour of the current occupiers. The proposal also received an objection from 2

Ward Councillors citing complaints made by residents about anti-social behaviour.

The Planning Officer did not have anything to add to the report.

Councillor Shaukat Ali proposed that the recommendation to approve the application

be moved. Councillor Riasat seconded this proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application, for the reasons and subject to

the conditions set out in the officer’s report.

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 for a proposed development that would form part of the first phase of

Project 500, which sought to provide 378 new, low carbon affordable homes on 27

sites owned by the Council across the city. Many of the sites are located in north and

east Manchester and new development would respond to high demand for affordable

housing.

Project 500 is being delivered by registered providers. This application relates to an

area of grassed open space with a broadly rectangular configuration covering an

area 0.56 hectares. The site had been previously developed and is in a residential

area. It is enclosed by a mix of low railings and higher railings to neighbouring

alleyways. Two storey terraced housing frontages to Connie Street and Meech Street

respectively is located to the west and south of the site. Pockets of open space

separate the site from two storey housing to the north. Two storey houses and flats

are located to the east of the site along Brigham Street.

One objection had been received and raised concerns regarding additional noise and

disturbance and traffic generation and additional on-street car parking. There were

concerns that the development would undermine the privacy of existing residents and

potentially increase the occurrence of anti-social behaviour. There was also a

concern that ground disturbance during construction may increase the risk of rodent

infestation.

The Planning Officer did not have anything to add to the report.

The Committee welcomed the proposal as a positive development for the city in

terms of the ambition to build and deliver social and affordable homes.

Councillor Riasat proposed that the recommendation to approve the application be

moved. Councillor Kamal seconded this proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application, for the reasons and subject to

the conditions set out in the officer’s report.