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 137399/FO/2023, 137401/FO/2023, 138126/OO/2023, 137537/FO/2023, 138127/OO/2023 and 138128/OO/2023.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

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

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2023 as a correct record.

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 regarding:

137399/FO/2023 - the erection of a 6 to 9 storey building for Sci-Tech use (Use Class E (g)(ii)) and 265sqm of a cafe/bar (Use Class E (b)), and a 9 to 23 storey building for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) (Use Sui Generis), comprising 737 bedrooms and 293sqm of community use (Use Class F2 (b)) and 80sqm of commercial floorspace (Use Class E), alongside new public realm, access, parking, and associated works following demolition of existing buildings.

114 objections (form 78 households) had been received. Councillors Muse and

Abdullatif object.

And:

137401/FO/2023 - Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and

erection of three 12/14/29 storey buildings to be used for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (Use Sui Generis), comprising 983 bedrooms in total and 506sqm of ground floor ancillary uses (café/commercial and convenience store - Use Classes E (a)/(b)/(c)), three buildings comprising 5/7/9 storeys for Science and Innovation uses (Use Class E (g)(i) & (ii)) and 834sqm ground floor community uses (retail/ cafés and

medical facility (Use Classes E (a)/(b) and (e)), and the provision of new public realm, two new public squares, new access and parking, and associated works.

Manchester Metropolitan University supported the proposal.

113 (from 76 households) objections were received during the first round of

notification, 97 (from 77 households) had been received. Councillors Muse and

Abdullatif object.

The Planning Officer stated that they recommended additional conditions regarding a student wellbeing strategy. The Planning Officer drew attention to matters in the late representations report regarding 6 additional objections for item 6 - 137401/FO/2023 - Land between Upper Brook Street, Kincardine Road and Grosvenor Street Manchester - Ardwick Ward. The Planning Officer stated that all points raised in those late representations were addressed within the report.

An objector attended the hearing and addressed the Committee, stating that it was not the job of the Brunswick community to solve the problems faced by students with a longer commuting distance. This was an unsustainable application as there was already PBSA in the area which stretched the resources. Adding this development would have a further negative effect on the community. Air pollution would be affected and the Medlock area already had the highest record in Manchester. There were also biodiversity issues to consider. Children in the area have a right to cleaner air and a cleaner urban environment. This proposal would see people using residential car parking spaces. Claiming that there would be zero additional cars was not realistic. This development would tower over the residents and block their light. There were 2 public consultations and the objector had attended. There were no buildings of similar height and massing in the area. 5,000 extra people and associated deliveries and taxis etc. was considered as a contempt for the community. The residents of this area wanted an affordable supermarket and affordable housing. As a resident of the area for the last 10 years, there had already  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

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 regarding an outline planning application (with access only in detail) for the phased demolition of existing buildings and phased development of up to 3,300 Purpose Built Student Accommodation bedrooms (Sui Generis use class)

with associated facilities including waste storage, laundry and cycle storage; up to 4,500 sq m of floorspace to be used for ancillary purposes associated with the student residential use of the site within Use Class F1a, Class E(a), E(b), E(c), E(d), E(g), Sui Generis (drinking establishment and hot food takeaway); ancillary supporting staff accommodation (up to 55 bedrooms) (Sui Generis use class), and up to 1,200 sq m of ancillary residential dwellings (Use Class C3), plus associated car parking, hard and soft landscaping, open space, utilities, footpaths and roads.

The application related to the redevelopment of part of the University of Manchester

student halls of residence at its Fallowfield Campus within the Fallowfield ward. Planning permission had previously been granted for its demolition and redevelopment as part of a wider scheme to provide additional bedspaces at the Campus. The application sought to update the University’s proposals to modernise the campus and provide further additional capacity at the site to address the need within the City for further purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA).

The Planning Officer noted the additional objections in the late representations report from local community groups and confirmed that all matters raised were already addressed in the report.

An objector attended the hearing and addressed the Committee stating that the scheme clashed with local and national policies and legal precedents. As an outline application, the most impactful features would be reserved matters, meaning that the Committee would not get to deliberate if they approved the proposal today. There were no particular details on the amount of bed spaces. An additional influx of wealthy students would cause harm to Fallowfield by way of 100,000 tons of carbon, in excess of legal limits in the area. Children have to walk past this area daily and also people with respiratory conditions. This scheme was contrary to the council’s own air quality policies. Bat protection was questioned and 14 bat roosts were mentioned. It was a criminal offence to remove bat roosts. This was a student fortress with no mixed use, no public rights of way and contrary to the core strategy. The Planning Officer may not have been well advised on this application. The Committee were being asked to make a decision on an unknown quantity and it was expressed that this application was a Trojan horse.

The applicant’s agent attended and addressed the Committee stating that this was a major investment and core part of the developer’s portfolio and would provide 4,500 safe student dwellings spaces. It was mentioned that Manchester’s growth had been partly due to the student population with many choosing to settle in the city and contribute. This was a globally competitive marketplace. Fallowfield played an important role in this field  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

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 regarding an application for use of ground and first floor as a restaurant (Use Class E) together with elevational alterations and other associated external works.

The application related to elevational alterations, including extending and

creating a first floor to the building, in association with the creation of a restaurant.

Six letters of objection had been received from two households.

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

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and stated that they had worked with conservation officers on the planning and design process. The building would have zinc cladding and the overall design would be a vast improvement. The application was originally to be dealt with under delegated powers, but public concerns led to revisions being made with no public access to the 1^st floor and a serving hatch removed from the plans as a potential source of anti-social behaviour. The rooftop plant and odour extraction system would have no effect on neighbouring residencies. The Ancoats area and immediate surroundings were home to thriving bars and restaurants and this would be an addition with a maximum cover of 18 diners. A smoking and CCTV policy had also been put in place. All available information was in the report and the agent expressed that he was looking forward to adding to the thriving food and drink economy in the Ancoats area.

Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

Councillor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Councillor Lovecy stated that this was a welcome application with community engagement and an improvement on the current setting.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to the conditions within 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 regarding the erection of a two-storey building comprising a Community Diagnostics Centre (use class E(e)), with associated external landscaping, patient and delivery drop off area and 6 no. accessible parking spaces.

The planning application was for the erection of a two-storey building comprising a

Community Diagnostics Centre (use class E(e)), with associated external

landscaping, patient and delivery drop off area and 6 no. accessible parking spaces

at the site of Withington Community Hospital on Nell Lane in the Didsbury West

Ward.

The key issues with this application were:

·       The need and benefit of the new centre

·       The impact on the local environment

·       The impact on the local traffic and parking

It was acknowledged there were concerns with the proposals, particularly around car

parking and the potential impact on the local area; however, as set out in the report it

was considered the proposal, which would provide a valuable new Health Care facility, must be carefully balanced with the overall public benefits holding significant weight. It was also recognised that this is a sustainable location near tram stops and bus routes, and other local facilities which provides significant opportunity to assist in

modal shift from the private car whilst also having access to off-street car parking for

those users where alternatives are not viable.

Other matters raised by objectors were also fully addressed.

The Planning Officer referred the Committee to an additional condition in the late representations report.

The applicant’s agent from the NHS Foundation Trust addressed the Committee on the application and stated that there had been a £2.3bn investment from the government. This had identified Manchester and Trafford as key beneficiaries of the scheme. Withington Hospital was already recognised as a key medical hub for the South Manchester area. This centre was well placed to measure the impact of cardio-respiratory issues on local health. The principle of this development was considered acceptable. This medical centre was located in a residential area with the design maximising the functionality of the building. Solar panels, net zero targets, low carbon and sustainable transport methods would help to meet strategic policies in the city. There would be 10 cycle spaces and 6 EV charging points all part of the travel plan for the scheme. There was also an action plan to consider short, medium and long term travel developments. There had been engagement with stakeholders and Local Ward Councillors. To assist with any potential for a rise in on-street car parking, there had been a rise from 30 to 60 mins of free parking for users of the hospital. The development complies with the local and national framework and would be a benefit to the development of a healthy population.

Ward Councillor Hilal addressed the Committee stating that she was in favour of the proposal, but had received complaints from residents about staff parking on residential streets. Councillor Hilal joined residents to observe this in the early  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

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 regarding an outline planning application (with matters of access, layout and scale for approval) for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site for up to 34 apartments and 3 townhouses (Use Class C3).

The planning application had been submitted in outline for the redevelopment of the

site following demolition of all buildings and erection of a 5 storey building to

comprise 34 apartments located along the Palatine Road frontage of the site,

together with 3 no. town houses to be located along the Allanson Road frontage.

The application had been submitted in outline with matters relating to access, layout

and scale being submitted in detail, with matters relating to the appearance and

landscaping being reserved for future reserved matters applications.

The key issues with this application were:

·       The scale of the building and its impact on the character and visual amenity of the area

·       Potential impacts on the residential amenity of residential properties in the area

·       The provision of affordable housing on the site

·       The impact on the local traffic and parking

·       The flood risk associated with the site

It was acknowledged there were concerns with the proposals, particularly around car parking and the potential impact on the local area; however, as set out in the report it was considered that the proposal would provide residential properties on brownfield land in a sustainable location with a policy compliant proportion of these being for affordable housing.

This application appears on the meeting agenda with another application submitted by the applicant for the redevelopment of another of their office sites located in Northenden for residential development in close proximity to this application proposal that application is reference number 138128/OO/2023.

Other matters raised by objectors are also addressed.

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

The applicant attended and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this solicitor’s firm had started out with 1 member of staff and grown to employ numerous staff, as exampled by the use of building before the Committee today. The company had required further expansion and acquired a new site on the Sharston Estate. This had led the company into re-purposing the building as “accidental developers.” The 1950s era building had been investigated for its potential to be converted into housing stock and it was considered not viable. The two items before the Committee today (items 10 Express Solicitors & 11 Transformulas House) were part of the same development and would be a useful site for housing and some affordable homes. In terms of parking, there were 40 spaces currently but this renovation would lead to less traffic and less parking due to the amount of staff being moved off-site. The townhouse each have a garage as part of the plot and the apartments had a 70% parking provision which had satisfied the Highways Officer.

Ward Councillor Moran addressed the Committee stating that she thanked the agent and welcomed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

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 regarding outline planning permission (with matters of access, layout and scale for approval) for demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment of

site for 2 townhouses (Use Class C3).

The planning application had been submitted in outline for the redevelopment of the site following demolition of all buildings and erection of 2 no three storey townhouses.

The application had been submitted in outline with matters relating to access, layout and scale being submitted in detail, with matters relating to the appearance and landscaping being reserved for future reserved matters applications.

The key issues with this application were:

·       The scale of the building and its impact on the character and visual amenity of the area

·       Potential impacts on the residential amenity of residential properties in the area

·       The impact on the local traffic and parking

·       The flood risk associated with the site

This application appeared on the meeting agenda with another application submitted by the applicant for the redevelopment of another of their office sites located in

Northenden for residential development in close proximity to this application proposal

at 313 – 319 Palatine Road. The application number is 138127/OO/2023.

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

The applicant did not add anything by way of a statement to the Committee.

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

Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

Councillor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to conditions within 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 regarding the erection of a single storey rear extension to provide additional living accommodation.

This application was considered by a meeting of the Planning and Highways Committee on the 16 November 2023 where Members resolved to defer consideration in order for additional images of the extension to be included within the report. This would also provide some understanding of the course of events leading to the extension being partly erected providing visual context. These images had now been included in the main body of the report. Concern was also expressed by Members that this application is retrospective. It is the case that a retrospective application is fully assessed in the same way as any other application and the extension, the subject of this application, had been fully considered on its individual merits.

The Planning Officer stated that visual aspects had now been provided to the Committee in the report.

Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

Councillor Curley seconded the proposal.

Councillor Lovecy stated that the Committee had requested that some builds be taken down retroactively and asked if this application met planning policies.

The Director of Planning confirmed that this application did meet the city council’s planning policies.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to conditions within 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 regarding the erection of part single, part two storey side and rear extension to form additional living accommodation.

The application sought planning permission for the erection of part single, part two storey side and rear extension to form additional living accommodation.

During the course of the application, it came to light the applicant works for Manchester City Council and for that reason it was necessary for the application to be presented to Committee for consideration. One representation from a neighbour had been received raising concern about the proposal in relation to loss of light.

Key issues related to the proposal’s impact upon neighbouring occupiers with regard to loss of light and the visual appearance as well as the impact on the character of the area in general. These issues were fully considered within the main body of the report.

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

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

Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

Councillor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to conditions within the report.