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, 130387/FO/2021 and 138302/FO/2023.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2023.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 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.

Consideration of this application was deferred by the Planning and Highways

Committee on 14 December 2023 to enable a site visit to take place.

The Government published, an updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 19 December 2023. The assessment of the issues and matters arising from the application set out in the report remained valid as a result of the publication of the updated NPPF and the recommendation set out at the end of the report remained unchanged as a result.

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.

Consideration of this application was deferred by the Planning and Highways

Committee on 14 December 2023 to enable a site visit to take place.

The Government published, an updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 19 December 2023.  The assessment of the issues and matters arising from the application  set out in the report remained valid as a result of the publication of the updated NPPF and the recommendation set out at the end of the report remained unchanged as a result.

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.

Officers noted that a letter of support had been received from the Growth Company that felt the application presented an opportunity for an exciting platform which would benefit the area for many years. Committee members had been on a site visit on the day of the meeting which focused on the tallest element of the application, at 29-storeys near Grosvenor Street, and its impact on nearby accommodation on Hamsworth Close. On the visit, members stopped opposite Elizabeth Yarwood to see another taller element on Upper Brook Street with the lower element closer to Kincardine Court. Members noted the proximity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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 Government published, an updated National Planning Policy Framework NPPF) on 19 December 2023.  The assessment of the issues and matters arising from the application set out in the report remained valid as a result of the publication of the updated NPPF and the recommendation set out at the end of the report remained unchanged as a result.

The Planning Officer had nothing to add to the report.

An objector noted that they had lived in the area for 24 years. They felt Fallowfield to be struggling with the number of people there. There were already issues with litter. The University of Manchester only guaranteed PBSA for students in their first year. The objector did not believe that this application would free up family homes and felt there was no evidence to support that it would. The felt the application was an overdevelopment of the site. They had concerns about carbon emissions and the effect of those on children, the elderly and the most vulnerable.

The agent, noted that this was an outline application with strict limits contained within that, such as having declared the maximum number of beds, the maximum height of the scheme and the areas that must be free from development and the points of access that were fixed in the application. The agent felt that the outline application allowed for Officers to make a full assessment of the scheme. The agent noted that it was desirable to increase the student population of Manchester but to do that, extra PBSA was required. Prices were to be purposely set at a competitive rate, typically 30% cheaper than what was available elsewhere. The agent noted that PBSA was necessary to move  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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 part 7, part 9 storey purpose-built student accommodation building comprising 146 bed spaces (Sui Generis use class) with ancillary amenity space, a ground floor community hub (proposed for Use Classes F2(b), E(b), E (3), E(f)) and associated landscape works and infrastructure.

A scheme was reported to Planning and Highways Committee on the 16 November

2023 for a part 7, part 9 storey PBSA building providing 146 bed spaces. The

Committee were ‘minded to refuse’ on the basis that PBSA of that size would have been contrary to maintaining a sustainable mixed residential neighbourhood and would lead to an imbalance of students living in the area. The planning policy context for this proposal was set out clearly in the section of the report with the subheading ‘Policies’. That part of the report addresses all the policies that were relevant to the determination of the application. As had been set out in previous reports, officers did not consider that there was a policy-based reason to refuse this proposal.

There were 22 objections to the latest scheme, one expression of support and two

neutral comments.

The Planning Officer stated that a letter of objection had been received from the Guinness Partnership on behalf of Cooper House residents, drawing particular attention to issues associated with the parking spaces for disabled people on Camelford Close, land they believe was not a public highway. The Council is a freeholder of the land on Camelford Close, providing a lease to the Guinness Trust but applicant would have a legal right to access the parking spaces. The Planning Officer noted that 31 objections from when the item was last before the Committee had been missed off this most recent report.

An objector stated that the development would have a profound impact on daylight and be overbearing on Cooper House. They felt there would be insufficient parking and loading, that would lead to further traffic congestion. They believed the application to be a far denser development than others in the area. They felt the development threatened residents’ quality of life.

A second objector noted that they had been consistent in stating that this development was inappropriate for the area. The proposed development would overlook children’s bedrooms. They felt the offer of a Community Hub from the developer to be insulting and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, stating that this would be a high quality, sustainable development. They felt there was a pressing need for PBSA in Manchester and that this site was currently a blight on the local area. The proposed site was 500 metres from the University of Manchester and 200 metres from Manchester Metropolitan University. The proposed PBSA would offer a variety of accommodation, in-line with the offer of a typical PBSA and will provide disabled parking and a Community Hub. The proposal was in-line with other buildings in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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 part 25 and part 15 storey residential building comprising 154 apartments (Use Class C3a) with ground floor commercial uses (Use Class E), together with associated residents amenity space, cycle parking, substation, servicing, and associated landscaping works following demolition of existing buildings.

The proposal would create 154 homes, of which up to 20% would be affordable (shared ownership), with commercial space in a part 15, part 25 storey building.

There would be public realm, parking for disabled residents and a loading bay.

Six objections had been received.

The Planning Officer report incorrectly stated that the affordable housing as part of the application was to be shared ownership, but it would be discounted market sales at 80% of market rates.

The applicant attended and addressed the Committee, noting that they had been a Manchester resident for a long time and had made a high-quality application containing 20% affordable housing. The application provided commercial space whilst also aligning with the zero carbon aims of the city.

Councillor Riasat noted that the report was detailed and was happy to move the Officer’s recommendation.

A member had concerns regarding the design of the application, with white buildings often becoming stained.

The Planning Officer stated that there were lots of white buildings that were not stained. When designed correctly, white buildings will remain white. The application had employed an experienced architect.

Councillor S. Ali seconded the proposal of Councillor Riasat to move the Officer’s recommendation.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve subject to the signing of a legal agreement to secure 20% affordable housing and to secure the use of the project architect.

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 two storey building (with basement) to form synagogue (Class F.1) following demolition of existing building, together with associated parking and landscaping.

The application related to a pair of semi-detached dwellinghouses which had been subdivided into flats. Consent is sought for the erection of a two-storey building (with

basement) to form a synagogue (Class F.1) following demolition of existing building,

together with associated parking and landscaping. The application site is located within the Crumpsall Lane Conservation Area.

7 objections and 103 emails of support had been received.

The Planning Officer stated that if members were to agree the recommendation of Officers, they would ask for one additional condition regarding another bat survey taking place before demolition of the building.

An objector attended and addressed the Committee, noting the proposal to demolish two houses and replace with a religious centre. The houses are part of a conservation area and were part of the reason why there is a conservation area in the first place. The objector could not see the justification for demolishing the properties. They raised concerns regarding traffic, noting the site is between two sets of traffic lights with congestion issues already apparent. They felt the application would make the congestion issues worse.

The applicant attended and addressed the Committee, accepting that it was a conservation area. The application had been in process for two years to ensure that the design addressed the needs of the area. They noted that they would not be able to keep the building as it was, and that the application brought less than substantial harm. Issues relating to traffic and parking had been addressed in the report, noting that the building was for an Orthodox religious community who were prohibited from driving on the days they visited the centre.

The Planning Officer accepted that it was regrettable to lose a building in a conservation area but it has been fully explored with the applicant whether it was possible to reuse the existing building or retain the frontage but it was accepted that the proposed scheme was an appropriate design and that there would be less than substantial harm with the public benefits outweighing any limited harm.  The Planning Officer was satisfied that users of the centre would walk and not drive.

A member queried if the building was still in use as housing.

The Planning Officer stated that the building was in use as apartments, owned by the applicant. There was a condition that the applicant would assist those living in the apartments with relocation.

A member questioned if there would be a pressure on timing relating to that relocation.

The Planning Officer stated that the condition would include time scales to relocate existing tenants.

Councillor Riasat moved the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor S. Ali seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve (subject to statutory notices lapsing and no new issues being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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 part six storey, part eight storey building for use as purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) (Sui Generis) comprising 263 bed spaces, with associated amenity space, cycle parking, external landscaping, access, and other associated works.

6 objections had been received.

The Planning Officer recommended a further condition should the Committee be Minded to Approve, to agree details of boundary treatment.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, stating that there had been extensive engagement regarding the application from the outset. The application would reuse a vacant brownfield site. The agent stated that there was a clear need for additional student accommodation in Manchester. The agent stated that the application met Policy H12. The application would provide economic and regeneration benefits, bringing construction jobs that would be targeted at Manchester residents. They noted there had been no objections from statutory consultees.

Councillor Hewitson proposed a site visit, noting that the proposed site was facing a children’s nursery and would overshadow nearby buildings.

Councillor Curley seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the motion for a site visit in order to investigate the potential impact of overshadowing on nearby buildings and the impact on the nearby children’s nursery.