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

A copy of the late representations received had been circulated in advance of the meeting regarding applications 140556/FO/2024 and 140133/FO/2024.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2024.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2024 as a correct record.

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

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the change of use of the existing vacant clinic to form 6 no. residential apartments (1 x one bedroom, 3 x two bedroom and 2 x three bedroom apartments) together with external elevational alterations, car and cycle parking and landscaping. The premises had recently been used as an unauthorised hostel, and was subject to an Enforcement notice, requiring cessation of the hostel use, by 18 August 2024. This has been complied with.

This application was deferred at the meeting of the Planning and Highways Committee held on 29 August 2024 to allow a site visit to take place.

At that time the Committee also requested more information on the internal condition of the building, and how the property would be adapted to make it suitable for residential occupancy.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit that morning to assess the scheme relative to neighbouring properties. Two additional conditions are also now recommended following concerns raised by Members, obscure glazing of existing windows to avoid overlooking on the west side elevation and requirement for repaving strategy, to be up to an acceptable standard. The Planning Officer also stated that there are requested visuals within the appendix which shows the inside of the building..

Councillor Hughes, speaking as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee, stating that Councillor Reid was unwell and unable to attend the meeting, hence he was speaking in place of her. Councillor Hughes considered that there had been no changes to the application or concerns around it. He stated that the number of potential tenants, being 21, was the same number as placed in the building under the previous, illegal tenancy. Councillor Hughes considered this to represent terrible living conditions. He had zero confidence that the owner would not allow this building to be occupied as an HMO and he hoped that the Committee noticed that this structure required change. The building is from the 1950s and the site would be better suited to 6 family homes, rather than 6 families placed in these small apartments. The Abbey Hey residents’ association and local MP were all strongly opposed to this development.

Councillor Kamal, also speaking as Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee, and supported the comments from Councillors Reid and Hughes, stating that this was not a residential building and could not accommodate the proposed number of tenants, expressing that this would constitute overcrowding. Additional associated issues of concern were noted around parking, anti-social behaviour and waste. Councillor Kamal concluded by stating that the site visit exposed all these issues.

Councillors Hughes and Kamal both left the room after making their comments and did not vote on the application.

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

Councillor Kilpatrick found it difficult to separate the previous use under the same owner and criminal living conditions from this application. He understood that the Committee cannot consider the previous use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

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

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the erection of a five-storey extra care scheme (C3) comprising 80 dwellings with ancillary facilities and circulation space, which would create the UK’s first purpose built LGBTQ+ majority extra care scheme and a four-storey residential block comprising 40 affordable dwellings (C3) and associated landscaping, private amenity space, access and parking.

The application site, which formerly accommodated the Spire hospital prior to relocation, comprises a brownfield site measuring 0.93 hectares within Whalley Range Conservation Area within Whalley Range Ward.

The proposals were subject of notification, by way of 1896 letters, to nearby

addresses, site notices were posted on the site boundaries and an advertisement placed in the Manchester Evening News.

In response to the neighbour notification 7 letters of objection

were received, 4 letters of support were received and 2 neutral comments.

The Planning Officer stated that, if the Committee were to agree this application, there would be minor rewording required for several condition due to additional information being received from the applicant to address some of the requirements of the conditions.

The applicant attended the hearing and addressed the Committee, stating that this was an application for 80 dwellings with an extra care scheme and an adjacent 40 dwellings. This was currently a vacant site, after the Spire Hospital had been levelled. This scheme would add housing for the elderly and would help the city in this regard. There were numerous social benefits to this truly unique development. This scheme was devised to home LGBTQ+ residents and would be the first of its kind in the UK. The site would be managed and maintained to a high standard and would assist in helping tenants onto the housing ladder. The development of the empty site would enhance the area and would use the footprint of the previous hospital. There would be trees planted and additional green space to increase biodiversity. In preparing this application, there had been extensive consultations with other groups and key stakeholders.

The Planning Officer did not add anything to the applicant’s comments.

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

Councillor Curley welcomed the scheme, stating that he would approve and adding that this was a good use of this site.

Councillor Riasat stated that he also supported this application but noted that one objection raised the issue of the nearby school wanting to reduce pollution in the area and asked if the Highways Team had taken the comments regarding road closures at drop off and pick up times into account and whether this would continue after the build.

The Planning Officer addressed comments by stating that access nearest to the school had been fully assessed, noting that the previous use as a hospital would have caused more associated traffic in the area. Only 23 parking spaces were served off the access point closest to the school. Due to the development being for retired living, the Planning Officer stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

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

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the erection of part 8, part 9-storey residential building (Use Class C3) comprising 99 new residential units with communal space, landscaping, infrastructure and other associated works.

There had been 1 letter of support and 8 objections.

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

The applicant’s agent attended the hearing and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this was an application from Cross Keys Estates , a company which was always keen to work on brownfield sites and with other developments across the New Cross area. The current site detracts from the area as a ground level car park and the design of this scheme considers its position in the New Cross development area and would add to the local landscape. The design features would enhance the locality and provide a courtyard. The development offered 1,2 and 3 bedroomed apartments and shared roof terrace for a range of activities. The scheme was highly sustainable, walkable and with 100% cycle storage.

The applicant addressed the Committee, stating that they were a home grown developer based in the Northern Quarter and worked across the North West in all sectors, developing buildings. This proposal would continue the style of their development.

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

Councillor Curley stated that this was a decent scheme and well written report. It was, however, regrettable that this was an expensive area of the city and this application could not offer any affordable housing contributions. Councillor Curley noted the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments regarding Section 106 contributions and noted that there would have to be much more across the city. He stated that the Committee fully support all the measures put in place with Planning applications but added that there had to be a move towards securing these contributions.

Councillor Kilpatrick concurred with Councillor Curley’s comments on the H8 policy being well written but felt that it left gaps for developers to get out of paying any S106 contributions. He agreed again on the earlier point made regarding affordable housing and added that the city could do more with regards to H8. Councillor Kilpatrick took issue with viability assessments and expressed that they should be considered individually. He questioned whether the viability assessments were conducted to a high standard, was the profitability margin estimate correct, and if there were any means to claw back funds for some S106 contributions.

Councillor Gartside referred to Manchester’s status as a Child Friendly Unicef City and enquired that, as the development was stating that it was suitable for families, questioned why there were no grassed or play areas for children.

The Planning Officer addressed concerns over the viability assessment, stating that they were not accepted at face value but were independently reviewed, line by line, outside of the applicants control and then fed back to the city council. Planning Officers then take this data  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.