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 139133/FO/2024 and 137769/FO/2023.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2024.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2024 as a correct record.

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

This proposal was considered by the Planning and Highway Committee on 30 May 2024 when Members deferred consideration in order to undertake a site visit and for further information and clarification on how the accommodation would be commissioned and managed, and how it would relate to other similar uses in the ward.

A site visit took place on the morning of the meeting.

The accommodation would be occupied only on a referral basis in conjunction with the City Council’s Homeless Team and residents would need to meet eligibility criteria to live there. Residents would be risk assessed relevant to their needs. Anyone who is considered to pose a risk of committing anti-social behaviour in the local area would not be accepted.

The accommodation would be staffed on a 24 hour basis. Staff would be working and on duty overnight. Residents would not be allowed visits and management arrangements would prevent residents from congregating outside of the building either within the grounds or on the public highway. Staff members would disperse any residents who are congregating outside and failure to comply with this could result their agreement being terminated. The applicant would make their contact number available to surrounding residents and other users including the school, who can contact them directly and staff can immediately take appropriate action.

Residents would be encouraged to meet with their families in the family home or with friends at local day centres or other social/leisure facilities. It is recommended that the operational management, in condition 12, is modified in order to reflect these arrangements.

The City Council’s Homeless Team and Support Housing Team support the proposal and do not believe that it would result in an over concentration of this type of use in the ward. The existing uses are low key in nature, housing a limited number of residents, and were dispersed across the ward avoiding a concentration in one location. As a percentage of the total population of the ward, these uses represented a small proportion of the total number of residents and would meet the needs of the most vulnerable.

The applicant stated that the proposal would help the council avoid the use of costly bed and breakfast accommodation. The applicant had worked with the city council and the scheme has the support of the Housing Team. It would accommodate low risk people who needed help. There would be a 24 hour staff rota and no sleeping quarters. People with a criminal record would be assessed on their individual case and any anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated. Clients would be contracted to a behaviour policy as part of their terms and conditions and anyone not adhering could be forcibly removed. Visitors would not be allowed on-site and there would be full control over who was in the building. Residents would be expected to meet family and friends at their premises or out in other social settings. GMP support the scheme and the applicant had engaged with Local Ward Councillors, redesigning the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

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

The Committee considered the report for the erection of a 24-storey mixed use building incorporating 224 residential apartments (Use Class C3a), 87 apart-hotel studios (Use Class C1), amenity space, flexible commercial space (Use Class E), and cafe (Use Class E(b)), together with infrastructure, landscaping, and other associated works.

The public realm would be improved including street tree planting, raingardens and high quality hard landscaping. There had been 3 letters of support and 9 objections.

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

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and stated that they represented the company and referred to their track record across the city centre and Salford with projects in Hulme, Ordsall and Ancoats. The developer wished to contribute to the city centre and this was a landmark development. The site in its current state was unattractive and subject to crime and the fear of crime. The application was a quality design of red brick with a sawtooth roof, harking back to the industrial heritage of the city. This development would provide much needed hospitality and access, adding public realm space to make the area feel safer whilst minimising impacts and improving economic growth. This was a good use of a brownfield site and the agent requested that the Committee approve the application.

The Planning Officer stated that the Cornbrook Metrolink stop was in dire need of improvement and this scheme would address that as part of the development and make the area much safer.

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

Councillor L Bell stated that his only concern was the lack of affordable housing within the scheme and hoped for some offer or support in this regard.

Councillor Kilpatrick noted that the height of the development had played a part in the objections received and stated that he made attempts to check the Strategic Regeneration Framework and questioned whether the increased height of the proposal was in line with this framework, as suggested in one of the objections. Councillor Kilpatrick moved onto a query around the light impact assessment and noted that the footprint of the scheme was the same as the previous application for this site. He raised concern over the impact to the Vox building and questioned why the development was compared to a theoretical building within the report. If the previously planned development was recommended for approval based on light assessments, then other factors should also be considered for this development, such as viability now that it was proposing a bigger building on the site. He noted that there appeared to be a different assessment as the Committee were being asked to approve a bigger building but lose the Section 106 agreement.

The Planning Officer stated that where affordable housing was concerned, the policy allows for a viability assessment to be undertaken. This is tested independently and then assessed in-house for consistency. It has been accepted that the profitability is way below the allowance for affordable housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

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

The Committee considered a proposal regarding the erection of a single-storey rear and side extension to create additional retail space, internal bin store and WC and installation of new shop front and associated balustrading to forecourt.

The applicant proposed the erection of a single-storey rear and side extension to create additional retail space, internal bin store and WC, along with a new shop front and balustrading to forecourt. Two letters of objections had been received from local residents and objections had been received from Ward Members. The main concerns raised included impact on residential amenity, the character of the Conservation Area and pedestrian/highway safety.

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

Councillor Kilpatrick addressed the Committee as Local Ward Councillor, confirming that he had made representations prior to joining the Planning and Highways Committee. He stated that this was the only premises without infill to the rear in this location and expressed disappointment with the report for this application. The premises was for Class E use, café/restaurant and was temporarily operating as a yoga studio but should still be considered as Class E. He noted the potential impact on neighbours as the project was situated very close to local residents. Councillor Kilpatrick addressed his concerns regarding the use and movement of 1,000L waste bins and noted that he had spoken with the applicant who agreed to store these waste bins inside. Regarding the frontage, this premises was within the conservation area therefore restrictions apply on the frontage. Regrettably, many premises had required retroactive planning applications for work already done. Councillor Kilpatrick also noted the curtilage to the frontage of many premises in the area, noting that lots of shop frontages should not be there to obstruct the public highway. He urged the Committee to consider the Class E usage of the premises, not to consider what it was currently operating as, and consider the impact this would have on local residents. Councillor Kilpatrick concluded by stating that there were already notable impacts with bins regarding associated noise and waste issues and asked the Committee to reject the application.

Councillor Kilpatrick left the chamber after making his comments.

The Planning Officer addressed the concerns by stating that the applicant had altered plans for waste and Class E use. The planned internal bin was satisfactory for a restaurant and could be placed, but not stored at the rear of the building. Late representations gave greater control over acoustic insulation and front and back door opening being restricted and were addressed in the report. The front area would be allowed later hours for the bi-folding door usage. There was also an additional condition to reinforce that the premises would not be staying open to 01:00 hours, as was previously proposed.

Councillor S Ali moved the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve.

Councillor Kamal seconded the motion.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application subject to conditions set out within the report.