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 applications 135544/FO/2022 & 135545/LO/2022,

136721/FO/2023 and 130387/FO/2021.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2023.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 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 7-storey building comprising office and laboratory

floorspace (Use Class E); cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, access and

servicing.

An anchor tenant would occupy the ground, mezzanine and first floor, with the

remaining floors available for occupiers in the life science and healthcare sectors.

The anchor tenant is an internationally significant health research organisation that

would bring substantial direct and indirect socio-economic benefits to Manchester

Science Park (MSP) and the Corridor eco-system, and leverage MSP’s advantages

in terms of locational clustering with major knowledge and research institutions.

The proposal would contribute positively to the city’s economy creating jobs and

training opportunities in key growth sectors for residents and support growth through

graduate retention.

Four letters of objection had been received. The grounds of objections concern design, the nature of the use, traffic impacts, impacts on the residential character of the area and sunlight and daylight.

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

An objector stated that the neighbourhood consultation did not make it clear what the

building would be used for. The height would cause overshadowing and there were

concerns over noise and possible unknown pathogens and the effect on air quality.

He questioned the purpose and work that would be undertaken in the laboratories

and commented on the change in class use. New drugs normally use some form of

animal testing and the objector felt that Hulme should be an animal testing and

vivisection free zone and asked the Committee to lead on ethical and political

decisions when considering this application.

The applicant’s agent that Bruntwood,have 40 years experience in delivering office,

research and lab spaces. This proposal would be a milestone for the science park

and enhance the capabilities of the university’s NHS foundation trust. The anchor

tenant and other high specification laboratories would attract occupiers in the science

and technology sectors. The proposal would add employment opportunities and

socio-economic benefits. No animal testing would be carried out on this site.

Ward Councillor Bayunu acknowledged the investment but also had to consider her

residents. She felt the developer should work with the community. There had been

some consultation but not all issues had been addressed. There would be more

development and she asked for all involved to be brought together and added as a

Council and Hulme as a Ward, should be animal testing and vivisection free zones.

Ward Councillor Wright noted that 9 trees would be replaced by 27 expressed having

had difficulties with other developers on this issue. Previous construction activity at

MSP had caused problems with contractors taking up parking spaces so a condition

on a construction plan would be welcomed. Daylight and sunlight would affect a small

number of residents but was still an important issue to raise. Some dwellings were

below balconies and received less sun and daylight. Jobs should be targeted at the

Hulme area and the area should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

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

The application was placed before Committee on 6 July 2023, where it was

resolved to defer consideration of the proposal to allow for a site visit to enable Members to gain a better understanding of the impact the proposed development would have on the local neighbourhood, owing to concerns expressed regarding the height of the development.

The Committee considered the reports of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that described that full planning permission was sought 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.

Seventeen 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 Planning Officer addressed a note of clarification from Councillor Sharif

Mahamed who had stated that the scheme would address and improve the needs of students in the city. As stated in the Late Reps report, the applicant had resolved to offer 20% of the bedspaces at a 20% discount on their base market value and to make these rooms available on this basis. Furthermore, there would be no parking permits available to tenants.

Councillor Bayunu addressed the Committee as a Moss Side resident, stating that this was a sign of a creeping impact of student accommodation off the Oxford Road corridor. In terms of accuracy amongst those already living at this location, a door to door check had been made by residents and found lots of families on site. There should be clearer information about the impact this development would have on the area. It was expressed that the Council cannot open up to this kind of development.

Councillor Bayunu objected to this application and felt there were inaccuracies that required addressing.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and stated that this was a significant student accommodation offer which was greatly needed in Manchester, the shortfall of which was having an impact in retaining potential family homes as they were currently being used as HMOs. This site was 200 metres from Oxford Road and a 10 minute walk to the University. The University had written with a representation of support for the application. Purpose built student accommodation (PBSAs) were of high need. The application was sensitive to the context of the area and of suitable

scale and massing. Preservation of the building style had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

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

The Committee considered the reports of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning the erection of 14 x 3 storey semi-detached houses and 2 blocks of 2 storey apartments containing 8 flats in total (Class C3) with associated car parking, landscaping, regrading of ground levels and boundary treatment.

The principle of the proposal and the scheme’s contribution to regeneration, as set out in the report, accords not only with national and local planning policies, but would also deliver key outcomes for the city delivering new homes for affordable rent (through a Registered Provider). Any potential impacts on local residents are fully set out and addressed. These include wider impacts from construction to operational impacts such as traffic, trees and visually from the development itself.

The site is located in Higher Blackley Ward, is broadly rectangular in shape, and covers 0.46 ha. It is vacant, with an area of hardstanding with areas of grass, self-seeded vegetation and trees. It is bounded to the east by St. Andrews Community Hall (single storey building), with two storey housing to the north of Longhurst Road, St. Andrews Church and rectory to the south, and Blackley Cemetery to the west.

The Planning Officer did not have anything to add to the printed report and late reps report.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application and stated that this scheme would offer 22 new houses at 100% affordable rent rate as part of Project 500.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions.

Councillor Lovecy stated that this development was very welcome and added that she supported the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

Councillor Kamal seconded the proposal.

Councillor Curley expressed that this was good news for those on housing waiting lists and looked forward to many more schemes of this nature.

Councillor Johnson raised a query regarding the comments on page 155 of the report submitted on opportunities to create improved areas of green infrastructure.

The Planning Officer confirmed that this was attached to the application as part of the landscape scheme.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application, subject to conditions set out in the 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 the erection of a part 7, part 11 storey purpose built student accommodation building comprising 197 bed spaces (56no. studios, 14 no. threedios, 10 no. cluster units (Sui Generis use class).

The Committee was minded to refuse an application for a part 9 part 13 storey

(PBSA) building providing 261 bed spaces on 31st May 2022 on the basis of the scale of the application and the shortages of parking spaces for disabled people.

There were objections to original scheme including neighbours, ‘Block the Block’ a resident-led campaign supported by Hopton Hopefuls, Aquarius Tenants and Residents Association, Hulme Community Forum and On Top of the World Hulme, Hopton Hopefuls, 2 employees of Manchester University, a GP practice on Booth Street West, the Guinness Partnership and One Manchester. 3 representations were also received from members of the public supporting the proposal. Councillor Annette Wright and Lucy Powell MP objected.

Revised drawings were submitted to address the above reasons for refusal; 25 objections from neighbours and an objection from ‘Block the Block’ were

subsequently received.

Members were minded to refuse a revised scheme on 20 October 2022 on the basis of scale and dominant visual impact and the lack of parking in close proximity to the entrance for those with disabilities and the use of on-street spaces for disabled parking spaces.

The Late Reps report stated that 20% of the bedspaces would be available at a 20% discount of market rent. The recommendation was altered to Minded to Approve subject to a legal agreement regarding the containing affordable rent obligations.

An additional representation from Councillor Wright referred to the previous Minded to Refuse decision. The Chair confirmed that 2 objectors were to address the Committee, sharing the 4 minutes allotted speaking time between them.

The first was a tenant of Hopton Court and had lived in Hulme all his life. Hulme had undergone many changes, not all good. He got involved with the Tenant’s Committee at Hopton Court and arranged for tables and benches to be placed outside. Then they managed to arrange for Hopton Court to be specifically for the 50+ age group and retired people. With the addition of Birley Fields campus and now this proposal for PBSA across the road he felt that this as too much for the neighbourhood. This was a piling in of students that would erode the community. Noise and litter were already a problem and Hopton Court was designed with bedrooms at the front of the building, making sleeping spaces only 20/30 yards away from the development.

Other people in the building had been persuaded to join THOSE spending time in the outside area and this development would be a detriment to this outdoor space. The local GP were also concerned over the impact of this scheme and felt that the impact would be huge. In closing his objection statement, the objector stated that he did not know why  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

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 office building and the refurbishment of the existing buildings at 3 Smithy Lane and Carriage Works on Garden Lane / St Mary's Parsonage. The Committee considered and 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. Consideration of this proposal was deferred at the meeting of the Planning and Highways Committee on 6 July 2023 to enable a site visit to take place.

The proposal is for 4,849 sqm of office floorspace and the retention and improvement of the Grade II Listed 3 Smithy Lane and the Carriage Works, following the demolition of part of the listed complex and other buildings on site. Objections have 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. Application referenced 135029/LO/2022 will need to be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision if Members are minded to approve this proposal.

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

The agent appreciated the concern over the demolition and noted that not much Victorian heritage survived World War II. The applicant had spent 4 years to find the best solution for the mix of heritage and development. Sustainability is key and this site would support Manchester’s zero carbon emission strategy. There was an ongoing demand for workspaces in the city and new offices would support more jobs.

This application would bring an underused site back into use and open up Garden Lane and Smithy Lane. The agent hoped that the Committee could support the application.

The Planning Officer stated that the building to be demolished had very little

remaining heritage and was listed as part of a complex. The proposal is large but this supported the restoration of the remaining listed buildings.

The Chair of the Planning & Highways Committee noted that the retention of heritage aspects was welcomed and invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions.

Councillor Riasat stated that the site visit was very useful to understand the context of the building and the proposal and was happy to see this modernisation and confirmed he supported this application.

Councillor Curley agreed that the site visit was useful. Once on site he understood the poor condition of the building and could see the value of saving the two buildings at the rear. This application offered a good resolution.

Councillor Davies referred to the pictures supplied showing current and proposed images and asked for them to be taken from the same viewpoint in future. She inferred that this was not a strong heritage site and added that the site visit was very revealing in that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

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 erection of 3 interlinked towers of 27, 21 and 16 storeys together with intermediary link buildings (15 and 11 storeys) to form Purpose Built Student Accommodation (Sui Generis).

No objections had been received. MMU support the proposal.

The Planning Officer confirmed that this proposal included affordable student

accommodation with 16% available at 80% of the market rate, secured via a Section 106 agreement that would bind the development and any successors.

The applicant stated that they were a leading provider and excited by the project on Echo Street. The scheme includes affordable accommodation. This was a high quality alternative to students living in HMOs and would free up housing stock.

The Planning Officer stated that this proposal essentially repurposed a previous approval for co-living and PBSA. It was now 100% student accommodation.

The Chair stated that this application would secure some affordable rental spaces for students which would was a positive outcome.

Councillor Curley concurred with the Chair’s comments and noted that the

development was made of the same sized units across the whole and this was welcomed.

Councillor Johnson stated that there was no concentration of large developments in this area. Piccadilly was growing but there was still a need for long term residents and the area was not established yet. Councillor Johnson asked if the cycle storage was under cover i.e., proper storage.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there was cycle storage inside and outside the building.

Councillor Kamal moved the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve.

Councillor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve for the application, subject to conditions set out in the 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 alterations to the Etihad Stadium North Stand and adjoining land to provide an overall increase in Stadium capacity, hospitality, and concourse facilities available for use both during and outside of event days, an ancillary TV Studio (Sui Generis), a Roof-Walk Attraction (Use Class F1(c)) together with the erection of a 9 storey, 391 bed hotel (Use Class C1) with a further 10 suites provided within the North Stand of the Etihad Stadium for hotel or hospitality space (Use Class C1 / Sui Generis); restaurant at Level 1 (Use Class C1 / Class E), erection of an 8-storey building comprising: a new Club Shop and Ticket Office (Use Class E) at Ground and Level 1, City Museum at Level 2, Leisure Attraction at Level 3 (Class F1(c)); and workspace (Class E) at Levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 and a new covered City Square fan zone and flexible event space with ground floor commercial, leisure, food and drink use (Use Class E and/ or drinking establishment (Sui Generis)) within each of the interrelated buildings adjoining the proposed square with associated landscaping and public realm works, servicing and access arrangements, and other associated works.

The proposal would extend the North Stand and include hospitality and concourse facilities which would also be available every day. Ancillary elements include a TV studio, roof walk attraction, 391 bed hotel, club shop and museum plus workspace for start ups and small businesses linked to the other users at the Campus. There would be a covered square forming an enhanced fan zone which would be supported by new food and beverage outlets. New public realm was proposed.

Lucy Powell MP (Manchester Central) supported the proposal. There had been three individual letters of support and 5 objections.

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

The agent stated that the development involved over £300million of investment. It was a sustainable and world class proposal for a sports and leisure district which supports the economy and residents in East Manchester. The site would employ a 890 people over the construction period. £100million of supply chain expenditure and 3,000 jobs would also be created. The site would inject £70million into Manchester’s economy and offer training and recruitment opportunities for local people. It would be a destination for football fans and other communities. The increased capacity at the Etihad as part of this development had been a relevant consideration. The scheme was future proofed and had been collaborated on with all stakeholders. This project

also supports ambitions for net zero carbon by 2030.

The Planning Officer noted that all the agent’s comments were within the report.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions.

Councillor Hughes stated that he was a lifelong Manchester City supporter and felt that this was a great scheme for East Manchester. He noted that the club were

staying in East Manchester for the long haul  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

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 concerning the background and issues involved in the making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on 18 April 2023 and to recommend the confirmation of this Tree Preservation Order.

The Director of Planning recommends that the Planning and Highways Committee instruct the City Solicitor to confirm the Tree Preservation Order on land at Wynnstay Grove/Sherwood Street, under Section 199 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and that the Order should cover the woodland as plotted T1 on the plan attached to this report.

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

An objector addressed the Committee, stating that he was here as Head of Estate Management for the charity, Railway Paths who own this land and 350km of other property attached to disused railway lines, lots of which are public access, such as Manchester’s Fallowfield Loop Line which adjoins this site. This was in conjunction with sister charity group, Sustrans.

The charity do not receive external funding so rely on construction projects on and around their sites. The charity needed to generate £750,000/£1million per year to keep running. The objector expressed his concern at how this TPO had been brought forward. No trees were at risk and there was a proposal made to the city council for potential social housing on this site. He believed the TPO application was flawed stating “one high quality tree” but added that this was not high quality woodland, and not accessible to the public. The site was used for fly-tipping, ASB and attracted rats and, regarding its visual amenity, its value was questionable. The charity had not had any discussions with the city council on this piece of land and the TPO may halt some much needed development. The TPO was premature and this site could be enhanced via the planning process. There was access to the Fallowfield Loop Line through Sherwood Street. Sustrans would like to enhance this area and the city council were supportive but unable to fund. Confirmation of this TPO would make any enhancements more expensive to deliver which would be contrary to aims of the charities efforts for the loop line and for the benefit of the public. In his closing statement, the objector requested that the Committee do not confirm this TPO and stated his desire to engage with the council on a proposal for social housing.

The Planning Officer stated that this process had been difficult. An arborist had been consulted and found 1 good quality tree on site. The application may have been pre-emptive to have control over what happens with the site in future. The Planning Team would work with the charity to give the trees any credence that may be deserved.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions.

Councillor Curley stated that this was an unusual TPO that could stop development on a brownfield site. It was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.