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

This application was a proposal for 485 homes with two commercial units in a part-34, part-11, part 9, part 7 storey building with hard and soft landscaping. 210 letters of objection were received from 2 rounds of notification and 34 letters of support. Many did not object to the principle of the site being developed, supporting the creation of more housing with appropriate facilities and are keen to see it brought back to life but object to the form of development.

The objections related to design and scale, heritage and townscape, affordable

housing, need and viability, privacy and living conditions of adjacent residents,

provision of public realm, traffic, highways and parking, climate change/embodied

carbon, compliance with Planning Policy, precedent, and the consultation process.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee of a representation from a Local Ward Councillor who raised concerns at the profit margin of 11% during difficult times for residents, noting that previously approved schemes had had a lower profit. Another Local Ward Councillor had raised concerns that the building would have been too tall, impacting on light and privacy and would impact traffic and pollution. A neighbouring Ward Councillor considered the application domineering in its size. A second neighbouring Ward Councillor felt that the application should offer 20% affordable housing.

An objector, representing a local resident’s group, addressed the Committee on the application. They felt that the impact of the application on the local community would be severe, with an inappropriate scale and character for the area. The objector felt the application was not in-keeping with the area, which is home to a conservation area that the application would over tower and overwhelm. The objector stated the application would be at least 20 storeys’ higher than any other building in the area. They felt that without a decrease in height, there would be a loss of privacy for residents already in the area and would dim the light in the area. The objector stated that the details provided by the developer had not eased their concerns and they continued to oppose the development in its current form.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the application.

A Local Ward Councillor addressed the Committee, stating that the application would harm, and have a direct impact, on the area. They felt there was not substantial support for the application and that the objections received far outweighed the support. The Ward Councillor stated that other developments, such as the Chapel Town Street development, in the area had been restricted on height. They felt no evidence had been provided to show that pedestrian routes would be created. In terms of Affordable Housing, the Ward Councillor noted that the developer had stated they would still turn a profit should they have offered 20% Affordable Housing, but they had not committed to that. The Ward Councillor felt a huge amount of work had gone in to regenerating the area, but this development would harm that progress.

The Planning Officer stated that the issues that had been raised had been addressed in the report. However, they did state that the other development referenced was compliant, at 14 storeys, with the Portugal Street SRF and similarly, this application was compliant with the Piccadilly Basin SRF.

A member sought clarity on if this application would provide a gateway to other applications for taller buildings and if the courtyard referenced in the application was private for residents or open to the public.

The Planning Officer said that there would be a private resident’s courtyard at 750m2, however there would also be a public space at 1500m2 that would be a route through the site from Great Ancoats Street to Port Street. The Planning Officer also re-stated that the size of the building was compliant with the Piccadilly Basin SRF.

The member responded, stating they felt that 34 storeys was still too high for the area. The member felt the application would have a significant impact on the Ancoats and Stevenson Square conservation areas due to its height.

The Planning Officer stated that the harm to heritage was set out clearly in the report, and it was found to have been less than substantial. The Planning Officer said that the public benefits of an application needed to outweigh the harm. They felt they did but acknowledged that was a decision for the Committee.

A member stated that this application was 20 storeys higher than the next tallest building in the area and felt that to be excessive. They felt that should the application have been allowed, other applications would be received for similar or taller buildings. The member also noted their concerns on Affordable Housing and felt that too many developers had been allowed to get away with not building enough.

The Planning Officer re-stated that the size of the building complies with the areas SRF, and any future applications would have to be compliant too.

A member then sought clarity on whether the application would be two or three stories higher than the framework or if it was compliant. The member also noted their concerns regarding viability assessments and their frustration with most applications not offering the 20% Affordable Housing policy.

The Planning Officer responded stating that the framework allows for two buildings on the site, one of 30 storeys and another of 25. This application was for one building at 34 storeys. The Officer also informed the member that the Affordable Housing policy requires 20% across the City, not on each individual development.

Councillor Andrews moved Minded to Refuse. Councillor Flanagan seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee agreed Minded to Refuse on the basis of the scale of the application and the impact on the conservation area.