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 138805/FO/2023, 138788/FO/2023, 137994/FO/2023 and Confirmation of The Manchester City Council (Land at Ashfell Court, Chorlton) Tree Preservation Order 2023.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2024.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2024 as a correct record.

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

The Committee considered the report regarding partial demolition of the former Hotspur Press and development of a part 4/5-storey and part 37-storey building to provide Purpose Built Student Accommodation (Sui Generis Use Class) with ground floor commercial or community uses (Use Classes F(e), F2(a)(b) and E(b)).

8 objections (including 1 on behalf of 6 residents) had been received. MMU do not support the application. A letter of support had been received from Macintosh Village Management.

The Planning Officer referred the Committee to the officer’s recommendation in the report, which was minded to approve, subject to a Section 106 agreement around affordable student accommodation and a waste strategy plus, resolving the concerns of the Environmental Agency.

The applicant stated that saving and restoring this historic building, which is in a state of disrepair, was important for Manchester’s heritage. The plans would preserve many of the old features and add a public square, open to the community. It would enhance wildlife and the River Medlock. 10% of units would be affordable. The developer believed that the proposal had the support of local neighbours and residents. The scheme will contribute to the neighbourhood and safeguard the character of this area.

Councillor Curley enquired about the discounted rent offer. The Planning Officer stated that, as this is PBSA the rent test did not apply and confirmed that 10% of the dwellings would be available at 80%.

Councillor Kilpatrick enquired about the objection from Environmental Agency regarding their concerns around a flood zone. Councillor Gartside requested for the square metreage of the public realm to be confirmed.

The Planning Officer stated that the Environmental Agency had no objection to a similar scheme in 2018. This is a technical matter that would need to be resolved. The Environmental Agency were not convinced that a Planning Condition would cover the matter. All residential accommodation would be above this flood zone and would not be affected. The public realm area was confirmed at 10,000 sqm.

Councillor Davies asked if the business units on site would sustain themselves during out of term, quieter months. The Planning Officer stated that the site was adjacent to the and close to Mackintosh Village and the site would offer public realm space in the city by the river. The Planning Officer could not offer any guarantees but noted that the curation of the units would help determine their future.

Councillor S Ali moved the officer’s recommendation. Councillor Kamal seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve subject to a S106 to secure affordable student housing and commercial waste disposal, removal of the EA’s objection and agreement that the development meets the requirements of paragraph 171 (b) of the NPPF in relation to the exception test.

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

The Committee considered the report for the erection of 15-storeys building to provide purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA - Sui Generis)) along with site preparation works, works over the public highway and other associated works.

The Committee deferred consideration of this proposal on 14 March 2024 to allow them to visit the site.

An objector stated that concerns had been raised by local businesses, with DC Motors attending to object in March 2024. The objector (from Paintpots Nursery) spoke on behalf the lease holder group for Bracken House where there were 6 floors of studio flats. She noted that the Committee observed the site from the playground area but did not go in Bracken House and may not have checked the view from DC Motors. DC Motors will lose their street frontage and the outdoor play area at the Nursery will only be 3 metres away from the development and have a detrimental effect on it. There was also the issue of the distance to the single aspect homes in Bracken House. This has been underassessed and half of all residents at these apartments with just one window will only have a wall to look at. By Manchester City Council standards, this is not good enough. Bracken House was converted into apartments prior to the “better space standards” scheme but it is residential and the report lacks a balanced view on this subject. Childcare and childcare staff sufficiency should be considered. This is another error in the report. The objector had experience in this area and hoped that the Committee could refuse this application on safety and ecological grounds as well as the safety of the nursery, wellbeing of local residents and economic effect on local businesses.

The applicant stated that 20% of the units would be affordable and there is a clear need for PBSA in Manchester. The scheme would release homes for family use. The applicant assured that there would be ongoing access to Paintpots Nursery and DC Motors with clear signage to the businesses and ramped access for pram users etc. The health of children and staff at the nursery has been properly assessed and no demolition is required , and therefore, no dust. This was not a complicated build and all noise aspects were controlled by a management plan, as reviewed by environmental officers. The gap between the building and nursery would be 6 metres, the same as it is on the opposite side of the development. Student “move-in” and “move-out” slots would be timed so as not to affect the nursery or other businesses. The site had been designed to fit in with the surroundings and the developers had offered Paintpots the use of some land as a playground space. The development responds to the demands for PBSA whilst sustaining local businesses and can be built safely.

The Planning Officer stated that this was a large report and all issues were covered within it, notably sun/daylight effects. Bracken House would experience a significant impact from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

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

The Committee considered a proposal to provide accommodation for 19 single homeless men with communal living areas, staffroom and parking in an office building. Referrals would be made by the Council for low risk residents with low support needs. The Homeless Directorate support the proposal. Representations from Councillor Grimshaw and Hitchen have been received. There have been 15 objections and 4 letters of support.

The applicant stated that the applicant had managed homeless centres in Hulme and Collyhurst. This development would provide 19 rooms for homeless men and would take away the use of private BnB rooms and save money. There had been a public presentation to provide information and allay fears or concerns. The centre was for men classed as low risk and low needs. It would be staff with 24 hour CCTV and clients would be correctly matched to the level of need at the centre. Anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated. The building was previously a care home so any mobility issues were already addressed. The plane was for the centre to assist homeless men on their pathway to an independent life and fining work. The drive was to ensure that anyone in Manchester can have a secure home.

Local Ward Councillor Grimshaw stated that the application lacked supporting information.  Local Councillors had met with Caritas and nothing was decided. The nearby school did not support the scheme. The report was poor in terms of presenting the objections clearly. Councillor Grimshaw shared his concerns, from being told the centre was for people being discharged from hospital to finding out that the scheme was offering a bed every night. Councillor Grimshaw felt that the Committee did not have enough information to make a decision and requested they conduct a site visit to understand the scheme and its proximity to a primary school.

Local Ward Councillor Hitchen was surprised to hear about how concerned the school was about this scheme. Councillor Hitchen had not been informed of the change of use for this building and the information from the Director of Homelessness Services had not been supportive. This was not simply a case of “not in my back yard” as there had been 550+ homeless people/families in this ward recorded in 2022.Last year there were 150 families and over 1000 in temporary accommodation. Information had been provided by officers that this site was ideal for 6 people and now this scheme proposed 3 times that amount. There were other recover centres for 59 males with addiction problems in Collyhurst already. The concern was for the use of this area as a stop-gap for individuals with complex issues and also for the safety of residents. It was not a case of not wanting to help but more that this area is already heavily addressing these kinds of issues already. Visitors to these males at the centre would not be allowed on site so this would force them onto the street. Councillor Hitchen stated that they had been told there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

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

The Committee considered the erection of a youth, sports and community hub (Use Class E(d)(g)), F2(b)), 2 no. football pitches, combined netball and basketball court, cricket strip (Use Class F2 (c)), a three storey building comprising 36 no. apartments for young persons accommodation (Use Class C3) and 267 no. dwellinghouses (Use Class C3a), with associated landscaping, public realm, ecological mitigation, refuse storage, drainage, car parking and other associated works, with access from Wembley Road and Mount Road.

The scheme proposed new family homes for affordable rent and shared ownership (through a Registered Provider), together with purpose-designed independent living accommodation for young people aged 18 – 25. who are leaving the care system at 18 years old, are in work and are at risk of homelessness. In addition, the development would deliver a youth, sports and community hub with associated sports facilities which would have benefits for the local community.

The Planning Officer stated that this application, if it were agreed today, the applicant had agreed to meet the full cost of the off-site play provision at Debdale Park. This would be included in the legal agreement and the recommendation was Minded to Approve, subject to that legal agreement.

The agent for the applicant attended the hearing and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this site was to be a youth sports and community hub, managed by Greater Manchester Youth Federation. Additionally, 36 individual living apartments for young people, owned and operated by CentrePoint. Lots of work and funding had been investing in youth services and session by GMYF and this site represented a unique opportunity with no viable future in its current state. A funding package was available for youth workers and would help meet needs of young people. Grass pitches would be created for football, basketball, netball and cricket strip plus two replacement pitches at Debdale Park. All accommodation would be for either affordable rent or shared ownership with 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom options. Support would be offered to young people via charity work and life skills. The construction of the proposal would create jobs and there would be 220 new trees added. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and crossing were proposed as part of the package. 1 bicycle would be provided for every home plus EV charging. There would also be solar panels across the whole site. The agent closed by stating that no objections had been received and asked the Committee to grant the application today.

Local Ward Councillor Richards addressed the Committee and stated that some areas of the site in its current form had not been used for football/sports for up to a decade and regularly suffered from fly tipping. Councillor Richards had reached out to GMYF and spoke with other Ward Councillors about working on facilities at this site. What has been achieved here had outstripped expectations. Time had been spent working with Melland School and others. This was a proud moment as there would be the first Centrepoint for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

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

The Committee considered the erection of 12 no. 2.5 storey dwellinghouses; a pair of three storey semi-detached dwellinghouses; a three storey building comprising 6 no. apartments; the retention and change of use of the existing mansion house together with the erection of a two storey side extension to form 2 no. dwellinghouses; creation of vehicular access points, associated landscaping, car parking and boundary treatment following the demolition of the other existing buildings and structures.

The proposal relates to the erection of twelve two and half storey houses fronting Acres Road, a three storey building comprising six apartments fronting Stockton Road and the retention and change of use of the existing mansion house fronting High Lane, together with a two storey side extension to form two houses and the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings in the location of a former extension to the mansion house with the creation of vehicular access points, landscaping, car parking and boundary treatment.

The application site comprises a brownfield site measuring 0.4 hectares within Wilbraham Road /Edge Lane Conservation Area within Chorlton Ward.

The proposals were subject to the notification by way of 269 letters to nearby addresses, a site notice was posted at the site and an advertisement placed in the Manchester Evening News.

The Planning Officer had nothing to add to the printed report.

The agent for the applicant attended and addressed the Committee on the application. The agent thanked the planning team for their diligence. This scheme would improve the lives of current residents. The Islamic High School for Girls has already moved to another area and this site could now provide 22 new homes. The applicant had carried out consultations with residents and Ward Councillors at all times, having submitted the application in 2023. Residents’ comments, along with those of the Highways Team, had shaped the project and the height of buildings and parking issues had been altered accordingly. The agent considered that the applicant had done everything practically possible to make this scheme acceptable. Demolition of the outbuildings would cause less than substantial harm. There would be three access roads into the site. The site had limited ecological foundations and this would actually be improved by this development. A high quality living environment would be created. There was no affordable housing available on this site owing to the lack of viability and the agent closed their statement by adding that this was a sustainable location and work would commence promptly if agreed by the Committee today.

Local Ward Councillor Benham addressed the Committee and stated that he and Councillor Hacking had been involved in the consultations on this development and welcomed these changes. There were traffic concerns, however and he wished to remain involved in how conditions were discharged, referring to Sections 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 of the Conditions to be attached to the decision area of the report.

The Planning Officer stated that Acres Road would be widened as part of the development with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

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

The Committee considered the erection of 7 no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated hard landscaping and infrastructure works.

The proposed application relates to the erection of 7 x two storey, terraced dwellinghouses. Following notification of the application, 8 representations have been received, including 7 objections and 1 neutral response.

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

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

Councillor S Ali moved the officer’s recommendation. Councillor Curley seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application.

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

The Committee considered a Tree Preservation Order request at Ashfell Court, 35 Edge Lane, Chorlton cum Hardy, M21 9HE, under Section 199 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and that the Order should cover the tree plotted as T1 on the plan attached to the report.

The committee was asked to consider 4 objections and 2 letters of support made to this order. This related to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) served on a Willow tree within the side/rear garden area of Ashfell Court, 35 Edge Lane, Chorlton cum Hardy, M21 9HE.

The Planning Officer had nothing to add to the printed report.

A local resident, in support of this TPO request, attended and addressed the Committee with his representations, stating that he had been the Chair of Ashfell Court for 30 years and had lived there for 34 years. The Court was comprised of small private flats with extensive gardens, trees, flowers and lawns. 15 trees already had TPOs on the site and he, along with another resident of Ashfell Court had applied for this TPO also. The supporter requested that this tree was given permanent status. All trees are assessed every 2 to 3 years with 25% of the trees being pruned last year. This was a 50 year old tree that was a host to lots of birdlife.

The Planning Officer did not add anything to the supporter’s comments.

Councillor Lovecy move the Director of Planning’s recommendation. Councillor Curley seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to instruct the City Solicitor to confirm the Tree Preservation at Ashfell Court, 35 Edge Lane, Chorlton cum Hardy, M21 9HE, under Section 199 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and that the Order should cover the tree plotted as T1 on the plan attached to this report.