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, 136256/FO/2023, 140955/FO/2024 and 139986/FO/2024.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2024.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2024 as a correct record.

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

The Committee considered a report that proposed 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.

This application was deferred at the committee meeting held on the 24 October 2024 to enable members of committee to undertake a site visit on the grounds of understanding the impact of the development on the adjacent Grade II* listed Victoria Baths, the unadopted road and use of open air roof terraces.

At the meeting held on the 24 October members of committee also made comments regarding the external terraced areas, and the number of disabled car parking spaces provided for the increase in bedspaces proposed.

Further drawings are provided within the body of this report in the residential amenity section of this report confirming the location of roof top terraces and relationship to existing residential properties. Comments were also raised regarding impacts on the privacy of existing residential properties and their occupiers, and responses to this issue are set out within the residential amenity section of this report together with diagrams indicating distances to existing residential properties.

The level of disabled parking spaces to be provided is 3 and this has been assessed as acceptable by the Council’s Highway Services team. However, there is a proposed condition (number 19) for a car parking management plan to be prepared. Further clarification has been provided in the wording of this condition that monitoring of the demand for accessible spaces should be undertaken as part of the management plan and additional spaces identified if demand requires these. As Bax Road is unadopted and in the applicant’s ownership they would be able to identify potential additional accessible spaces if these were identified as being required.

For clarification purposes, the site currently provides accommodation in the form of 566 bedspaces. The application proposals would uplift the numbers of bedspaces available on site to a total of 876 bedspaces thereby providing an increase of 310 bedspaces.

The Planning Officer confirmed that a site visit had taken place that day, viewing the relationship to Victoria baths, viewed from the frontage on Hathersage Road, and from the rear, as well as the relationship to neighbouring residential properties. The applicant had agreed an extra condition for full details of a community engagement strategy to be controlled by condition. The late representations included images and cross sections to show the relationship to nearby properties and houses to the rear in more detail.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, noting the current condition and appearance of the site, and thus the benefits of the application on this. They noted a need for additional student accommodation, with this application reusing an existing student accommodation block. 62 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

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

The Committee considered a report that proposed the partial demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 35 no. residential homes, consisting of 31 apartments (13 x 1 bed and 18 x 2 bed) and 4 townhouses (2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed), landscaping, access and associated works.

The application site, which formerly accommodated the former Nello James Centre, comprises a brownfield site measuring 0.25 hectares located on Withington Road within Whalley Range Conservation Area within Whalley Range Ward. The building on site is a non-designated heritage asset.

The proposals were subject to the notification by way of 117 letters to nearby

addresses, a site notice was posted on site and an advertisement placed in the

Manchester Evening News.

In response to the originally conducted neighbour notification 8 letters of objection

were received, 1 letter of support was also received. 4 letters of objection have been received in relation to the submission of revised plans, one neutral comment and one comment of support, additionally Ward Councillor Razaq has objected.

All matters raised by objectors are fully addressed in the following report.

Amongst other matters that are set out within the body of the report it is considered

that the principle of housing development in this part of South Manchester is appropriate as it will add to the stock of housing. The scheme will also bring forward high quality development on a brownfield site in a sustainable location that will not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the highway network or cause undue harm to the amenity of surrounding property or the character of the Conservation Area within which the site is located.

The Planning Officer noted that the late representation included some additional illustrations to show the relationship to houses at rear of site.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, noting that the application was to redevelop a vacant site into new homes as the site had fell into disrepair. There had been common instances of anti-social behaviour at the site. They felt the application would enhance the Whalley Range conservation area. The applicant had worked closely with Officer’s to find an appropriate design for the site and felt the application would safeguard heritage assets and key mature trees. They stated that there was an appropriate mix of size of properties. The development was in a sustainable location. There was appropriate car parking provision along with 36 cycle spaces which was above 100% provision.

A ward Councillor addressed the Committee, stating that the development of the site was welcomed. They noted that the development was in a family area and requested that there was an increase in 2-bedroom properties to reflect that, whilst reducing the number of 1-bedroom properties. They raised concerns regarding mature trees, believing they needed to be retained. They asked for a Section 106 agreement to allow for investment within the community. They requested a site visit for members to determine what is beneficial for the area.

The Planning Officer noted there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

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

The Committee considered a report that proposed the use of a property on Stockport Road in Longsight District Centre as an Adult Gaming Centre providing slot machines for gambling purposes (Sui Generis). 13 objections have been received, together with a petition signed by 180 signatories and objections from Ward Councillors and Councillors from adjoining Wards.

The report explained that the City Council has been notified of an appeal against non-determination. Members cannot now determine the application, but a resolution is required as to what decision Committee would have made if it was still within its power to determine the application.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that an appeal against non-determination had been received therefore the Committee were unable to make a decision on the application but could endorse reasons given for the Officer’s recommendations of refusal which would then be used in the appeal.

The Director of Planning noted that the Committee could go against the Officer’s recommendations.

The applicant or their agent did not attend the Committee.

A ward Councillor noted that there had been a lack of engagement from the applicant. The ward Councillor had not met anyone who supported the application. It was felt to be inappropriate for the site to be open 24/7 especially given that those hours went beyond the current use of the district centre. The site is situated in a vibrant centre and a premises such as this would detract from that. The ward Councillor noted that there were a high number of young people in the area and a high number of vulnerable people that this application could have a negative impact on. They welcomed the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.

The Planning Officer noted that there were two reasons for refusal; that the application would undermine the character and attractiveness of the district centre and that there was no evidence to show other shop type uses would not be viable at the location. The hours of 24/7 would also bring noise disturbance.

A member raised a concern that the applicant had a site in another area of the City that they won on appeal and queried if there was confidence this would not happen again. Members also raised concerns about the possibility of there being a bar at the premises.

The Planning Officer stated that the application did not include provision for a bar. At the appeal, it would be asked that a condition was attached to exclude an ancillary bar if the appeal was upheld, however it was felt that there was a strong case against the application. There had been other appeal decisions that supported the Officer’s recommendations.

Councillor Curley proposed a motion to endorse the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Gartside seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to endorse the Officer’s recommendation of refusing the application.

(Councillors Chohan, Hewitson, Lovecy and Richards declared a prejudicial interest in the item and remained in the room as Ward Councillors until they had spoken, subsequently leaving the room and taking no further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

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

The Committee considered a report that proposed the erection of a part 17 / part 23-storey residential development comprising 237 apartments (Use Class C3a) and ground floor commercial uses (Use Class E) together with landscaping, cycle parking and other associated works following demolition of existing buildings.

The site contains a vacant building, a canopy, hardstanding and limited vegetation and scrub and is secured by a hoarding. There have been 3 objections.

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

The applicant stated that they are a community focused organisation, and the proposal met the company’s ethos. The application met Council policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. This was a sustainable location that would enhance biodiversity. The jobs during the construction phase and operational phase would focus on local people.

Members noted the importance of jobs for local people and affordable housing and welcomed the Section 106 agreement. A member queried if the viability of affordable housing would be tested further.

The Planning Officer noted that Condition 10 ensured that local people would benefit from jobs related to the scheme. Affordable housing would be retested at an agreed point in the future.

Councillor Curley moved the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve the application subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an initial contribution towards affordable housing, a late stage review of the viability to determine if there is any uplift in conditions to warrant a further contribution towards affordable housing

and to ensure the project architect is retained.

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

The Committee considered a report that proposed the demolition of existing part vacant buildings and erection of a part 10 storey, part 27, part 28 storey residential development comprising 359 homes (Use Class C3) with supporting amenity spaces, and associated highways works, landscaping, plant areas, and other associated works. There have been 13 objections.

The Chair declared a prejudicial interest in the application and sought nominations for a Chair for this item. Councillor S. Ali nominated Councillor Curley to Chair the item. Councillor Chohan seconded the nomination.

Members voted in favour of Councillor Curley as Chair for this item.

The Planning Officer had nothing to add to the printed report or the late representation.

The agent stated that the proposal would transform a vacant Brownfield site. The height was considered to be appropriate, at 28-storeys stepping down to 10-storeys, in-keeping with neighbouring residential buildings. There had been extensive consultation, and all impacts had been tested, as set out in the Officers report. The scheme would be energy efficient and provide green space, enhancing biodiversity. Jobs would be provided for local people.

A ward Councillor objected to the scheme on height, traffic and a lack of affordable housing. They felt that the height would dominate and was not in-keeping with its neighbours. The affordable housing offered was not enough. Traffic issues continue to grow in the area and this application would exacerbate that. The Committee were asked to refuse the application based on height, massing and traffic issues, complete a site visit or to add a condition for speeding prevention measures such as speed bumps.

The Planning Officer stated that the issues had been covered in the report and that the nature of development in the area had changed and had become high density. The impacts of the scheme were not unusual for the city centre. This was a car free scheme but there was an acknowledgment that improvement was required on Store Street. The application was on the margins of affordable housing and to add a condition regarding traffic may cause affordable housing to be lost. The offer of affordable housing was off-site. The scheme only had 12% profit. Strategic issues relating to Highways could be picked up outside the Committee in a wider piece of work rather than burdening this particular Planning application.

Members raised similar concerns regarding traffic. Members also raised queries regarding whether the scheme was accessible and if there were any sports facilities offered due to the objection received from Sports England.

The Planning Officer stated that there were accessible units throughout the scheme. There was no specific policy requiring sports facilities and if members wanted a financial contribution towards this, then the amount of affordable housing would be further reduced.

Members welcomed that there was some contribution to affordable housing but were concerned that the contribution was off-site, although acknowledging the impact that land value had likely played in that. Members acknowledged the difficulty of how to address highways concerns and queried whether it should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.