Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Planning and Highways Committee - Thursday, 13th April, 2023 2.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Level 2, Town Hall Extension. View directions

Contact: Ian Smith 


No. Item


Supplementary Information on Applications Being Considered pdf icon PDF 75 KB

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 the combined application of 121195/FO/2018 & 121196/LO/2018.




To receive and note the late representations.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 115 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2023.




To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2023 as a correct record.


121195/FO/2018 & 121196/LO/2018 - Land at Shudehill Manchester, M4 2AD - Piccadilly Ward pdf icon PDF 4 MB

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


The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that presented an application proposing the demolition of all non-listed buildings (with exception of partial retention of the Rosenfield Building facade), partial demolition and alterations to 29 Shudehill, and erection of a new building comprising ground floor plus part 2, part7, part 8, and part 19 storey to include 175 residential units (Use Class C3) together with flexible ground floor commercial

floorspace (Use Class E), new public realm, cycle parking (90 spaces),

and other associated works.


The development would redevelop a largely vacant site that contains heritage

assets. These make a positive contribution to the street scene, the character of the

conservation area and setting of adjacent listed buildings. Their setting and character

could be improved through appropriate regeneration. The site is fragmented and

disjointed, but the wider townscape of the conservation area has visual cohesion,

from its complementary massing, layout and form of its buildings.


The proposals would provide 175 homes and commercial units but the form of

development: would not be of an appropriate quality; would not enhance its

surrounding to an acceptable level; and would not deliver a coherent development

which properly responds to context, or which maintains the areas prevailing

character and setting. The harm to heritage assets would not be outweighed by

public benefits.


The development would be car free. Cycle parking is proposed but this would be less

than 1 space per apartment.


Objections have also been received from Historic England and the Victorian Society.

71 letters of objection have been received from 2 rounds of notification concerned

about the use, design and impact on heritage assets impact on amenity including on

future residents from existing noise sources (agent of change), servicing and

highways impacts, construction impacts and sunlight and daylight impacts. An

objection has also been received from and Save Britain’s Heritage.


The Planning Officer stated that there had been 3 letters of objection and 1 of support since publication of the initial agenda.


The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this was a complex site requiring regeneration. The applicant had worked with Council Officers, and it was with regret that these Officers stated that they could not support the application. The applicant was of the opinion that the scheme should be approved and referred to information of some support within the report. The site was a current blight on the area, was in need of development and the agent stated that they did not share the views of objectors concerning the heritage aspect and scale. Regarding the scale of the project, the agent stated that all heritage assets were considered for retention, but this had been proved impossible. This viewpoint was included and validated by a third-party assessor. The agent expressed that the area was suitable for tall buildings. Regarding the design of the scheme, the agent stated that this had been undertaken by a leading design studio, Buttress, who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.


135733/FO/2022 - Barlowmoor Clen Gas Governor, Barlow Moor Road, Manchester, M21 7GZ - Chorlton Park Ward pdf icon PDF 3 MB

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


The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that presented an application regarding the installation of a replacement kiosk required to house a new gas governor following demolition of existing including installation of replacement weldmesh palisade fencing.


The site is of an irregular size located to the rear of residential properties on Barlow Moor Road and Houghend Avenue and to the west is the Manchester Crematorium with the wider Southern Cemetery beyond, an Electricity substation is located adjacent and to the south of the site. The site is not publicly accessible, with the alleyway that serves it having been subject to a City Council alleygating scheme approved in 2008. The wider area to the south, west and north is predominantly residential in nature whilst to the east is the western boundary of the Manchester Crematorium with the Grade II registered Southern Cemetery beyond. The site is located within the Chorlton Park ward of the city. In order for the replacement infrastructure to be compliant with current technical industry standards and guidance the new infrastructure requires larger clearance areas (3m minimum) around them. As such, the associated housing structure known as a kiosk is required to be larger than those that currently exist on site. The applicant has confirmed that the replacement infrastructure (gas governor) is to be installed under the applicants permitted development rights and it is the Kiosk and associated 2.4m perimeter weld mesh fencing that requires planning permission.


Amongst other matters that are set out within the main body of the report it is

considered that the principle of the upgrade of existing energy infrastructure with

suitable mitigation around tree loss is acceptable in this instance.


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


The agent for the applicant, Cadent Gas, addressed the Committee and stated that the company supplied gas services for around 11million homes and businesses. This was an important development as it currently serviced 20,000 customers. There was a need to keep gas pressure at a premium and the site was currently non-compliant. The kiosk needed to be maintained and inspected and would require dismantling and replacing due to its restricted size. The kiosk and surrounding fencing would be green to be in keeping with surroundings and it was regrettable that the trees on site would have to be lost. Referring to tree loss, the agent confirmed that replacement trees would be provided, as per a condition on the application. Any surrounding vegetation would be removed out of season to prevent habitat loss to wildlife but the needs of the unit to be functional and compliant would outweigh the loss of trees on site. The kiosk would be noise insulated and would be no louder in its operations than the current unit. Diligent planning had been implemented and there were clear public benefits for this upgrade.


The Planning Officer expressed regret about the tree loss associated with the upgrade but confirmed a condition to replace  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.


134160/OO/2022 - Land to the north of 27 Capenhurst Close, Manchester, M23 2SL - Baguley Ward pdf icon PDF 3 MB

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


The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that proposed an outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of one (3 bed) detached dwelling, with associated car parking and landscaping.


This application relates to a rectangular plot of land, approximately 495m² in size,

which is located to the north of nos. 27 to 33 Capenhurst Close. The site is vacant

and remained undeveloped after the Capenhurst Close and Stapleford Close

development (F17127, approved 28 April 1982) was completed in the late 1980s.


The applicant is proposing to erect a three-bed detached dwelling on the site. Eleven

letters of objections have been received, nine in relation to the original proposal,

which was for a pair of dwellings, and two in relation to the proposal now before the

Committee. The main concerns raised include impact on the existing on-street

parking arrangements, residential amenity, pedestrian/highway safety and existing

ecological features.


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


An objector to the application attended and addressed the Committee, stating that they were unhappy with the diagrams relating to the submitted scheme as they included no measurements and were more of a sketch. The objector stated that there were already problems in the area due to traffic on the cul-de-sac. There was a sign against heavy goods traffic and she questioned how construction vehicles would be allowed access, stating that the refuse collection vehicles have difficulty navigating the area. Hospital parking also created issues on the street and the objector stated their right to have 24 hour access for emergency services. Currently, there were pillars at the end of the footpath onto Capenhurst Close to stop motorbikes, quad-bikes and cycles and, if these were removed for construction purposes, the alleyway would become a rat-run. If construction equipment were to be left on-site it would attract vandals and thieves and this was another cause of concern. The objector stated that locals had not been informed of the length of time for any on-site works. In concluding, she stated that traffic was the main concern as the area was already busy.


The Planning Officer stated that this was an outline application, which previously had been for two houses on the site, now reduced to one. The application was in outline and therefore just sought approval for the principle of one house with all details reserved for future applications. All that was being considered today was the application to allow one house on the plot of land. Highways safety had confirmed that the road would not be adversely affected by one new house. Condition 20 within the report covered all aspects of construction vehicles and the associated compound.


Councillor Andrews stated that this was in his Ward and that he knew the area well. He asked the Planning Officer if the consultation for reserve matters application for the build etc. would be shared with local residents.


The Planning Officer confirmed that this would go through a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.