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 139987/FO/2024, 139844/FO/2024 and 138763/FO/2023.

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 26 September 2024 as a correct record.

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

The Committee considered a report regarding the redevelopment of existing student accommodation buildings (6 in total) to include the phased demolition and extension of the existing buildings to a maximum height of 12 storeys to form Purpose Built Student Accommodation (876 bedspaces in total) (Use Class Sui Generis), including associated ancillary internal and external amenity space, ground floor community/commercial (Use Class E, F1 and F2), hard and soft landscaping and associated highway works.

20 representations had been received, 18 of which objected to the proposed development. The key issues arising from the proposal related to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, the need for purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), and the heritage impacts of the proposals on the adjacent Grade II* Listed Victoria Baths.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be a minor rewording required for Condition 13 regarding off-site highway works to include tactile paving on Hathersage Road, should the Committee approve the officer’s recommendation.

An objector attended the meeting and addressed the Committee, stating that Whitstable in Kent was a well known holiday destination where only two of the original families remained. Similarly, Manchester was a well known student destination where neighbourhoods were becoming similarly dominated by student accommodation. The objector drew attention to the phrase studentification, whereby an area becomes dominated in this way. The objector stated that these areas had permanent residents with a sense of community cohesion and other, temporary residents who do not engage in this way and destabilise their areas and have a detrimental impact. The developers had made efforts to engage with the local community with events but the objector expressed that he had done more in setting up a website and online group. The revised plan for the height of 9 storeys would affect light and the overlooking aspect of the scheme may cause females of the Muslim faith to have to wear a hijab inside their own homes. The objector asked if block 4 could be reduced to 6 storeys in their closing comment.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and stated that the developer was seeking to address issues presented to them. The site was located in Ardwick and required investment as it was not well presented in its current condition. The current site had not met environmental standard and there were security concerns. The applicant would address these issues as part of the development. Student accommodation was much needed in Manchester and the siting, designs and management of this scheme should add to the neighbourhood. The additional height was to sit in context with the overall scheme and the taller blocks were purposefully situated further from residential gardens. Upper West Grove would not be materially affected by light loss. There were other benefits to the community and a live dialogue will have a broad remit. There will be an active and proactive use by the developer, with dedicated internal space, free for the use of local residents. The site would employ a strict  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

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 demolition of the existing house and the erection of a new building to provide short term accommodation (sui generis) with ancillary facilities, together with the alteration to the existing access, provision of car / cycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

The applicant was proposing to demolish the existing dwellinghouse and erect a part two/two and a half storey residential development on the site to create 16 short-stay, two bed self-contained flats to provide accommodation for homeless families with non-complex needs. Though homeless family group sizes vary, maximum occupancy would never exceed 60 occupants in total for the entire site.

Eight letters of objection had been received, with the main issues raised being overdevelopment of the site; insufficient parking and associated traffic congestion/on-street parking; potential increase in anti-social activity and crime in the area resulting from future residents; the design of the proposal and impact on property prices.

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

The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this was a scheme proposing short term accommodation for homeless families. There were 16 apartments for the city council to provide for families in south Manchester. There were many unfortunate life events that can cause families to become homeless and people were often placed outside of Manchester in the surrounding Greater Manchester boroughs. This can make getting to workplaces and schools unreasonably difficult for these families. The unit would house only non-complex needs families for a maximum period of 3 months. The team would then move them into permanent accommodation. This unit had been modelled on the Apex scheme in Levenshulme and would have 3 staff on site, fully managed with no on-site visitors allowed, CCTV, allowances for the families to stay out at friends and families for 2 nights a week maximum and other provisions. Adults would have to sign a contract as per the terms of stay and could have their tenancy terminated if this contract was broken. The design of this residential unit reflected the surrounding area and there would be no loss of privacy to any adjacent houses. The site was fully accessible, would have 3 car parking spaces (considered sufficient to meet the needs of the unit for the 3 staff on site at any time), had the backing from the Highways Team and was fully acceptable in all respects.

The Planning Officer stated that the Planning Team had worked extensively with the agent and architect on this project to mitigate harm on neighbouring properties regarding scale and mass and the addition of angled obscured glazed windows to avoid overlooking.

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

Councillor Lovecy stated that her ward was affected by Section 21 notices and recognised the need to provide for families in these circumstances. She noted a proposal in the report regarding providing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

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 a City Council Development. The application related to the conversion of a former Adult Education centre to short stay homelessness accommodation (sui generis), together with ancillary office and administrative space. No elevational alterations are proposed, other than the removal of window grilles.

Objections had been received from 2 local residents. The main concerns raised

related to anti-social/criminal behaviour perceived to be generated by

prospective residents; the impact to residential amenity of local residents, and the

loss of a tree.

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

The applicant attended the hearing and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that the Home Office passed a law in 2023 for asylum seekers to be granted leave to remain. This meant they had to quickly move out of home office centres and seek somewhere to live, often with 2 weeks notice. Many ended up sleeping rough as a result. Owing to this, the city council set up a respite centre in an unused building in Northenden for short term stays. This building was now being renovated and would not be fit for purpose until 2025 so the application before the Committee today was for an interim centre. This would ensure hospital beds are kept free for the needy. This application sought to repurpose the Longmire Centre for those with mobility issues and would house 12 tenants with 12 security staff on site. There would be no visitors allowed and the scheme would be safe and well managed. All tenants would be moved on within 6 months and background checks would be made on individuals. All tenants would sign a contract for terms of stay and this ensures respect. The unit had good relationships with the neighbours already and the scheme had been welcomed by them. Contact details for the unit would be shared with all nearby residents.

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

Councillor Gartside voiced that this was a positive step, especially in cutting down hospital bed use and had one query regarding any provision for a social space within the unit and also provision for anyone with medical or mobility issues.

The Planning Officer stated that many of the tenants would have a care package, adding that there would be an outdoor activities area but anything above this would be a consideration for the Homelessness Team and not for Committee consideration.

Councillor Lovecy requested clarification on a longer term strategy for the site.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there was a 5 year plan for this temporary approval and any later schemes would require planning permission afterwards.

Councillor Lovecy stated that the forthcoming site for this temporary scheme was within her ward and that the residents were all satisfied with the previous provision there and moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

Councillor S Ali seconded the proposal.

Decision

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

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 detached, three storey building to form 6 residential apartments (Class C3), together with associated car parking, landscaping and boundary treatment.

Following notification of the application as originally submitted, 1 letter of representation was received containing 27 signatures objecting to the proposed development, along with photographs showing traffic incidents along Queens Road.

Concerns were raised that the proposal would lead to an increase in traffic, parking demand and servicing requirements along an already busy road and would lead to an increase in the risk of traffic accidents and disturbance due to the busy nature of Queens Road and the proposed site access and car park. It was also maintained that the site was not vacant, and that part of the site had been fenced off and was outside the ownership of the applicant. Further concerns were raised about the loss of greenery, the impact to local wildlife, visual intrusion and noise and disruption during excavation and building works.

The Director of Planning stated that some Committee members may have been approached directly by one of the objectors but she had been assured that no discussion on the merits of the application took place. For clarity, the Director of Planning confirmed that any members who may have been contacted would therefore still be eligible to consider and vote on this application.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be an additional condition if the application was approved, regarding a requirement for existing and proposed levels to be agreed due to the slight slope at ground level. This would ensure that everything was in accordance with submitted elevations.

An objector attended the hearing and addressed the Committee, stating that their community entrusted her to speak as community guardian, homewatch representative and other positions. Manchester City Council’s vision for this development was not shared by the residents and it was of the objector’s opinion that the applicant had misled the Planning Department in saying that no trees would be affected by the development. A loss of trees would affect the mental health of nearby residents. Crossing Queen’s Road was dangerous, the applicant was aware of this and traffic flow was a problem. People making the decisions about the crossing, such as Highways don’t know the issues in the area like the residents do. The objector had herself been struck at the nearby crossing and expressed that the police and fire brigade agreed that it was dangerous. The community have seen no notices concerning the development and feel like they have not been able to have their say. The area was not affected by high crime as had been suggested and there had only been one notable incident. Since the land was purchased, it had been neglected yet there was some wildlife on the plot, which was a point that had been ignored. This spot had been used as a garden for many years and there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

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 6 storey building to provide 40 no. (Use Class C3a) and ground floor commercial space (Use Class E), together with landscaping, parking, cycle parking, supporting infrastructure and associated works.

Eighteen letters of objection, four letters of support and four letters that neither support nor object had been received.

The Planning Officer confirmed the additional late representations to clarify the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a future viability review to determine if an affordable housing contribution should be provided and that the project architect be retained. There was a clarification for the report regarding representations received, being eight objections, three supporting and two neutral.

The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that they were representing Urban Splash for this application who believed that this application would be a benefit to the community and the city. This was a six storey building for 40 much needed residences in Ancoats. It was a brownfield site earmarked for development and would be improved by this application in line with Manchester’s regeneration goals. This scheme would complement the area using high quality materials. This £10.5m development would create construction jobs and then long term employment at the ground floor units. The scheme would also support the local economy by attracting residents and providing much needed 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in a sustainable location for travel, reducing reliance on cars. Landscaping of the site would improve the public realm by enhancing pedestrian and cycleways, retaining trees and adding more greenery. This was a low carbon development, mitigating climate change, utilising EV energy efficient designs and having a green roof and solar panels.

The Planning Officer added that this had been a long standing vacant site and one of the final available plots for development on Old Mill Street. Planning Officers were confident that this application was policy compliant and would bring one the final regeneration plots into use.

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

Councillor Lovecy noted illustrations of the street scene regarding greenery and landscaping and questioned whether condition 28 specified the developer’s intentions in this regard.

Councillor Curley stated that this was the final piece of the jigsaw and would tidy up this area of the city whilst adding needed accommodation space. He noted that Urban Splash was a long standing developer of good repute in the city and voiced his support for this scheme.

The Planning Officer stated that the proposed development took up much of the plot but there was a siding of the plot that had been retained for three trees and some shrub planting. There was to be a green roof which would add further biodiversity with the development. The Planning Officer confirmed that she has satisfied to clarify expectations from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.