Decision

The Committee agree to appoint Councillor Curley as Chair of the meeting.

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 139715/FO/2024 and 141724/FH/2024.

Decision

To receive and note the late representations.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2025.

Decision

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2025 as a correct record.

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

These applications concerned the Full Planning Permission for the phased construction of 2 buildings to include: a tall mixed-use building to include residential (Use Class C3) and hotel with associated bars and restaurant (Use Class C1) (Plot 2a), a second tall building with residential accommodation (Use Class C3) with flexible commercial units (Use Class E) (Plot 2b), landscaping and public realm, servicing, drainage and access arrangements, highways alterations, and other associated works. And Listed Building Consent for alterations to Castlefield Viaduct structure including alterations and creation of openings to facilitate structural works, localised removal of masonry, creation of basement and part removal of Great Bridgewater Street Bridge in association with the erection of two residential buildings.

The proposal would contribute to placemaking and regeneration in the area.

The proposal was in accordance with national and local planning policies, and would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits. The development of this brownfield site would deliver a key component of the Great Northern, Manchester Central and Castlefield Quay Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF).

It would create 585 homes, with 133 affordable, in 2 buildings and a 160 bedroom 5* hotel.

A 76-storey tower would be constructed on land partially comprising the grade II listed Viaduct known as Plot 2a. This comprises homes, a hotel with associated bar and restaurant. The homes would comprise of 1, 2 and 3 beds with amenity spaces.

Plot 2b, would comprise a 23-storey residential building accommodating 133 affordable 1-, 2- and 3-bed homes, 198 sq. m flexible commercial units opening onto the viaduct, and public realm enhancements on Great Bridgewater Street.

The homes and a hotel would help support the Council’s housing pipeline in the City Centre and support the supply of hotel bedrooms bolstering tourism. These uses a consistent with Council policy and the aims of the SRF.

23% of the homes would be affordable and provided on a shared ownership basis.

There would be significant improvements in biodiversity through tree planting and the development would be fully accessible.

The Planning Officer referred to the comments from Historic England on pages 30-40 of the report, noting that it was rare for this body to directly write for the attention of the Planning and Highways Committee and hoped that this would demonstrate their serious level of concern due to its impact on Manchester’s most important and iconic buildings and townscape. Their concern was that the 76 storey tower was too tall for this location. Its construction would cause harm to some of the city's most treasured historic buildings and they noted that the Planning and Highways meeting was set in one of the most special buildings which represents the historic pride that the city has in its civic and commercial functions. The high grading of these listed buildings were the fulcrum around which the city pivots and Historic England believed that these buildings and the spaces should be respected and protected from encroaching distractions which compete for attention with the Town Hall tower. Their concerns were largely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

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

This application concerned the demolition of buildings at 2 and 4 Whitworth Street West and the construction of a residential building (Class C3) with associated servicing arrangements, landscaping, and associated works.

The proposal was for the demolition of the existing buildings, the stopping-up of

Rowendale Street and the delivery of 364 new homes (120 (33%) one bed, 218 (60%) two bed and 26 (7%) three bedroom) in a 44-storey building. The

first three floors would provide resident amenity space, including lounges, flexible

workspace, health and well-being and the reception, plus cycle storage, waste

storage and plant.

There have been four representations of objection to the applictaion.

The Planning Officer referred to the Late Reps report, stating that there were concerns over the effects on light to the terrace at Lock 91 as a result of this development but this had already been addressed in the report and the loss of light was compliant with the relevant guidelines. The recommendation was for Minded to Approve subject to the expiration of Regulation 25 consultation and if any further material comments arise then this could be delegated to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning & Highways Committee.

An objector attended the hearing and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that he was the occupier of 2b Whitworth Street West which was a local grass roots music venue. He stated that the understood the need for housing in the city centre but felt it was a shame to see no affordable housing on offer as part of this application. He noted that artists playing the larger venues across the city all start out of grass roots venues such as the premises next door to the proposed development. The objector also added that the venue was not made aware in writing of this proposal and noted that other developments around them had been more transparent. The objector stated that he was wary of the construction site and these arrangements, confirming his concerns as being around the parking of tour buses associated with the venue’s operations.

The applicant’s agent attended the hearing and addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this highly sustainable scheme, from Glenbrook, would contribute to the quality housing stock in the city centre, bring millions of pounds in capital investment and would complement the other tall buildings. It had been a costly investment and would cater to a wide range of clients, owing to the 1,2 and 3 bedroomed dwellings that would meet the needs of growing population in the city centre. The design, alterations had undergone and responded to extensive assessments, including environmental impact assessments. The developer had taken a ‘belt and braces’ approach regarding any and all concerns and a commitment to mitigation measures were in place and was complaint with the council’s entertainment noise limits on city centre dwellings. The buildings currently in situ would be replaced with a design which respond to the historical character and context, using a terracotta design.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

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

This application concerned the proposal for a part 12, part 33 storey student accommodation (PBSA) building with ground floor amenity space. Consent was also sought on a temporary basis for an associated Construction Compound.

The application related to two sites, one for the Proposed Development (the Site) and one for the associated Construction Compound. The Site previously had planning permission combining Plot 9a and Plot 9b for an office development, which had expired. The development of offices at Plot 9a had recently completed.

The PBSA would comprise 861 studios with 43 (5%) accessible or adaptable. Two would be ‘Fully Fitted Wheelchair Accessible’ studios  with all necessary handrails, pull cords and alarms at practical completion and two would be ‘Future Wheelchair Accessible’ studio, with a larger bathroom to accommodate a wheelchair and power connections for the addition of more equipment. The remainder would be wheelchair convertible

Two sets of representations from a single property objecting specifically to the site compound had been received and one general objection had also been received.

The agent for applicant addressed the Committee and said that the application had been brought forward by a developer with a proved track record in delivering high quality Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in the city that had been recognised both locally and nationally. He said that this development was a high quality, sustainable design and would deliver improved public realm and support biodiversity net gain. He commented that the proposal was expected to achieve a Breeam Excellent rating (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). He said that the application was wholly in keeping with the Council’s strategy for delivering PBSA and would contribute to the quality and vitality of the First Street area. He said that the scheme would also deliver social and economic benefits to the city. He commented that no objections had been received from the statutory consultees, and he concluded by asking the Committee to approve the application.

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

Councillor Hughes enquired about the 129 (15%) affordable studios which could operate under a nomination agreement with Manchester Metropolitan University. The Planning Officer stated that this application was specifically in relation to student accommodation and the Council’s 20% affordable housing policy did not apply to PBSA at this time.

Councillor Gartside made reference to the letter of objection that raised the potential for disruption to television and WIFI signal as a direct result of this development. The Planning Officer stated that it would be the responsibility of the developer to monitor and rectify any detrimental impact to signals, and this requirement would be included as a condition. In response to a question from Councillor Bell he said that if residents did experience such issues they would typically contact the Planning Department in the first instance, and they would be then directed to the developer.

Councillor Richards moved the officer’s recommendation to Minded to Approve the application.

Councillor Hughes seconded the motion.

Decision

The Committee were to Minded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

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

This application concerned the proposal for the change of use of an existing vehicle garage and MOT testing centre to an indoor market hall, with associated external alterations.

The proposal would create 8no. self-contained commercial Class E units. The site would feature a central corridor, providing through access from Henry Street to Gun Street and would also provide the main entry points to the commercial units. There would also be 2no. accessible WCs, a storage closet and a bin store. Prospective occupiers would be small/emerging independent businesses which would be procured by the applicant to ensure that they are within the spirit of this ethos.

Three letters of objection had been received.

The son in law of the applicant spoke in support of the proposed development. He said that after a significant period of time trading at the site the family had decided to retire the business and repurpose the building. He made reference to the significant positive redevelopment of Ancoats over the previous years that had transformed this area of the city centre to become a vibrant neighbourhood and destination for many people to both live and socialise. He said the proposal would support the local community by delivering affordable space for eight independent retail operators within the existing structure. He said that there would be no impact on the immediate pavements at the location and that the removal of the garage business would reduce the number of vehicles accessing the site.

The Planning Officer stated that it was considered that the application was wholly appropriate for the location in the city centre.

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

Councillor Gartside said that she fully welcomed and supported the application and she considered this to be a very positive development for the local area.

Councillor Lovecy enquired about biodiversity net gain to be achieved as a result of the proposal. The Planning Officer stated that the scale of application meant that it be exempt from the mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements, however commented that a condition would be included if approved to ensure bat boxes and brick, bird boxes were included where allowed to create potential opportunities to enhance and create new biodiversity within the development.

Councillor Bell enquired about the potential of risk from contaminated land due to the operation of the business over a significant number of years. The Planning Officer said this was not considered to be an issue and testing of the land was not required as there was no intention to undertake any physical disturbance to the ground.

Councillor Richards moved the officer’s recommendation to Approve the application.

Councillor Hughes seconded the motion.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application.