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 132513/VO/2021, 132199/FO/2021 and 132214/FO/2021.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2022.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2022 as a correct record.

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

This City Council development related to the erection of a two-storey extension to form changing rooms, cafe facilities, flexible club/social/training rooms and an extension to the existing gym space following the demolition of the existing changing block building; together with the creation of two 3G artificial football turf pitches, associated floodlighting and fencing; a 67no. space car park and an additional 60 space overflow car park; and associated landscaping

The Hough End Leisure Centre, granted planning permission in 2014 and opened in

2015, provides a leisure centre comprising swimming pools, fitness suite and other

indoor sports and recreational facilities. The Leisure Centre was developed as a standalone facility but within the context of the wider sports facilities at Hough End. The longer-term vision was to further develop Hough End as a sport and leisure destination to grow and sustain sport and physical activity participation particularly in south Manchester. As part of this it has been long recognised that facilities to support the external sport pitches at Hough End including changing facilities are deficient. The existing changing pavilion at Hough End playing fields have been condemned and were closed in 2016.

The proposals were subject to notification by way of 592 letters to nearby addresses,

site notice posted at the site and advertisement in the Manchester Evening News. In

response 1040 comments have been received 1017 of these are objecting to the proposals. Chorlton Park Councillors Midgley, Rawson, and Shilton-Godwin have

submitted comments in support of the proposals.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that there had been 2 further letters received since the publication of the late representations, 1 objecting and the other in support of the development, confirming that neither of these raised any new points. The Planning Officer then stated that Condition 7 would require minor re-wording, should the Committee approve the scheme and it was requested that this is delegated to the Director of the Service.

An objector, representing a local opposition group to the application, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on the application. The objector first requested that the Committee consider a site visit and subsequent deferral of the matter at this hearing, expressing that he felt there had not been enough time to consider the late representation documents and check for/consider any errors. In stating that there was a case for refusal, the objector referred to some 3000 refusal requests from residents. The objector stated that the open space and visual impact of the scheme would impair the site with fencing and floodlights, adding that the open area should be free for anyone to use and noting the effect on wildlife. Further mention was given to the removal of trees, vehicle emissions and public safety issues linked to further cars using the site. The objector questioned the additional car parking spaces, stating that Princess Road was already congested and adding to emissions issues. Mention was given to the floodrisk and water quality at Hough End being impaired by the development and affordability of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

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

This application was proposing full planning permission for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of two 51-storey residential buildings (Use Class C3) creating 988 homes across two phases, including residential amenity facilities, basement car parking, landscaping and public realm, servicing and access arrangements, highways alterations, and associated works.

This 0.88 ha site is bounded by Great Jackson Street, Pond Street and Owen Street.

It is adjacent to Deansgate Square, with the 64 storey South Tower and 50 storey

East Tower being closest to the site. Much of the area has been redeveloped with the four towers of Deansgate Square (37 to 64 storeys) to the north and Crown Street (21 to 52 storeys) to the west. Two further towers are being constructed at Crown Street phase two which include a school and park.

The Planning officer had no further information or additional comments to make.

No objectors to the application attended the meeting or addressed the Committee on the application.

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

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

A member stated their concern regarding the development of almost 1000 homes, none of which would be affordable, concern that the profit appeared to be £4million and £90,000 was being offered towards affordable housing which was expressed as being a poor amount to put back into the community.

The Planning Officer stated that the figures had been independently assessed and added that the scheme would contribute 0.6 hectares of public space that would link up with other spaces and parks around Great Jackson Street, creating a tapestry of public spaces linking Hulme with the City Centre. Additionally, the scheme would contribute £0.5million towards a new school fit-out and there was a clawback mechanism for affordable housing, which was in line was many other previously approved applications put before the Committee.

A member stated that they understood the point around consistency, but it appeared to be that Manchester had less affordable housing proposals than Salford. The member then stated that they could not support this application with the associated level of profit.

The Planning Officer referred back to his previous statement and stated they could not add anything further.

A member stated that they felt £90,000 contribution to affordable housing was small but understood the Planning Officer’s explanation. The member felt that there were complex issues but welcomed the contribution towards the school and public realm, stating that it would benefit property owners and the city as a whole, adding that maintenance costs to inhabitants saves the Council the costly task of keeping areas clean and desirable. Whilst noting that £90,000 wouldn’t buy a house in Manchester, the member expressed her support overall.

The Planning Officer acknowledged that affordable housing is a big issue but stated that the viability had been well scrutinised, adding that there could be a further contribution, additional to the £90,000.

A member stated that £90,000 was a poor amount but that other factors made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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

This application was proposing the erection of a 15 storey building to form 107 apartments (Use Class C3) at floors 1 to 15, residential amenity facilities including a roof terrace (level 14), associated ground floor cycle storage (68 spaces), two ground floor commercial units (Use Class E/ Sui Generis (Drinking Establishment), multipurpose events Pavilion (Use Class E/ Sui Generis (Drinking Establishment), associated landscaping to site perimeter and rooftop PV panels.

2 letters of objection had been received.

The Planning Officer stated that there had been one further representation from a Local Ward Councillor, raising concerns about the lack of any affordable housing and lack of preliminary discussions with local members to address this. The Ward Councillor noted that the profit level was 12%, considerably lower than usual, that demonstrated the ability to raise capital at this level.

No objector attended the meeting or addressed the Committee on the application.

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

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

A member stated they were in favour of the parks and pavilion and asked when this aspect would be open to non-residents, whether this was tied into a condition. The member noted that the scheme was smaller then previously considered and raised a concern about maintenance fees for residents and asked how this would be managed. In their final comments, the member noted that there was no affordable housing linked to this development and no contribution being offered either and requested information on accessible toilet for those with impaired mobility.

The Planning Officer stated that the accessible public space may need rewording and confirmed that the cost of this space is borne by the developer. The pavilion and ground floor unit would create some funding towards the upkeep of public space and affordable housing had been assessed for viability. The Planning Officer concluded by stating that 12% forward funding represented a low figure.

A member stated that they felt that this was a good application and, with regard to its location, felt that this would not be an area best suited for affordable housing.

Another member stated that the Planning Committee deal with each application on its own merit and welcomed this scheme and the public realm attached to it. The member stated that the public realm area should be cleared at night to protect residents’ amenity and should be child friendly.

The Planning Officer stated that they would look into the concern regarding the space being child friendly.

A member noted the addition of a roof terrace and stated that they can create a nuisance for residents within hearing distance and enquired into whether this terrace would be facing other properties. The member asked if the positioning of roof terraces could be a future consideration and asked what the closing times would be.

The Planning Officer stated that roof terrace concerns could be added to condition 23, relating to the management strategy.

Councillor Flanagan moved the recommendation of Minded to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

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

This application related to the erection of two buildings part 27, 20, 17 storeys and part 11 and 10 storeys to form a mixed use development comprising of 461 residential apartments (Use Class C3a) and ground floor commercial uses (Use

Class E) (718 sqm) together with public realm including courtyard pocket park, landscaping, car parking and other associated works.

The proposal would create 461 homes, of which up to 60% would be affordable

(shared ownership and affordable rent), and 718 sqm of commercial space in two

buildings ranging in height from 27, 20, 17 storeys and 11 and 10 storeys. There

would be public realm and parking for disabled residents only.

One neutral comment has been received.

The Planning Officer had no further comment to add to the report.

No objector attended the meeting or addressed the Committee on the application.

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

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

A member requested clarity on how much social housing for rental was included in the 60% figure. A concern was raised in regard to the lack of car parking, noting that this was a busy area for traffic, expressing that residents without car parks could create further problems in the area. The member then asked about priority for the 5 disable parking bays.

The Planning Officer stated that the developer had secured funding from Homes England to fund the additional 55% affordable housing and stated that 121 homes would be available under social affordable rent and 132 as shared ownership. This area had been awaiting development for a long time and that a multi-storey car park has been proposed which may be able to secure parking for residents of the proposed development. The Planning Officer stated that the developer would be responsible for meeting any needs if there was a greater demand for disable parking spaces.

The previous member welcomed the 121 social rental properties but noted that it was rare to have a development which did not provide any parking.

A members welcomed this application in the Cheetham Ward but noted that the provision for disabled parking was lacking and requested a condition to be added to improve this number.

The Planning Officer confirmed that they would include a condition relating to further disable parking.

A member enquired into whether the financial support for the additional affordable housing had been confirmed and, if so, asked whether there could be additional social rental properties.

The Planning Officer stated that the scheme was based on 5% affordable contribution but was assured that the funding was in place, with the work to begin on the development in May 2022.

The previous member asked if the condition could be amended to state that further affordable rental properties would be added if the funding did not materialise, changing the split from 15 social rentals & 8 shared ownership to all 23 being secured as social rental properties.

The Planning Officer stated that the initial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.