Agenda item

Agenda item

130387/FO/2021 - The Former Gamecock Public House, Boundary Lane, Manchester, M15 6GE - Hulme Ward

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

Minutes:

The application proposed a part 9, part 13 storey purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) building providing 261 student bed spaces. There had been 49 objections from neighbours, an objection from ‘Block the Block’ a resident-led campaign support by Hopton Hopefuls, Aquarius Tenants and Residents Association, Hulme Community Forum and On Top of the World Hulme, an objection from Hopton Hopefuls, a letter of objection from 2 employees of Manchester University, an objection from the GP practice on Booth Street West, objections from the Guinness Partnership and One Manchester and 3 representations from members of the public supporting the proposal. A Local Ward Councillor and Local MP had also objected.

 

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that a further 26 representations had been received, that raised similar issues to those that had already been listed in the report. The applicant had also provided further information on how the community hub would have been managed. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the revised conditions were recommended.

 

An objector, representing a resident’s group, informed the Committee they were there to speak for the ageing residents of the area. The objector stated that residents had a sense of security through the close community feel of the area, however that was being threatened by the prospect of a tower block looming over them. There was a fear amongst residents of extra noise emanation, not just during construction, but from students who would reside in the building in the future. Residents felt they may be driven out of the area. The objector stated that they welcome students into the area, however this application was not in the interests of the community. The objector felt that this application would have been detrimental to the mental health and wellbeing of residents.

 

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

 

A Local Ward Councillor addressed the Committee, informing them that all three Local Ward Councillor’s in the area wanted the application to be refused, or at the very least, a site visit arranged. They noted that applications for this site had been turned down in 2008 and 2012, with the reasons for refusal applying to this application too. The Local Ward Councillor did not consider there to be a need for more student accommodation in Hulme. They informed the Committee that a former student block had been recently redeveloped for a new purpose, highlighting the lack of need. A local campaign group had polled students regarding their accommodation preferences and found that students wanted the independence of privately rented property and parking. The Local Ward Councillor felt the application would be over dominant in the street scene. The nearest neighbours to the application would be two resident social housing blocks, and a new block of the size proposed would impact on their daylight and sunlight, particularly in communal spaces. The Local Ward Councillor also stated that whilst MMU had provided a letter of support for the application, they had given no commitment to use the accommodation for their students.

 

A second Local Ward Councillor informed the Committee that the development failed to consider the health and wellbeing of current residents and ignored Manchester’s ambition of being a zero-carbon city. The developer planned to fell 5 trees, including 1 that was subject to a tree preservation order. The developers had suggested they would replace the trees, but the diminished sunlight caused by the development would make it difficult for them to survive. The Local Ward Councillor informed the Committee that 20% of residents at a nearby housing block had insufficient Vitamin D and a block of this size would exacerbate this. Elderly residents in the area have been trying to develop a community cohesion that is relevant to them. The Local Ward Councillor felt the building plan was bland and uninspiring and did not give sufficient regard to surrounding area.

 

A third Local Ward Councillor informed the Committee that the current owner of the land chose not to work with community to develop it and that is why it lies derelict. They felt that this development would increase on-street parking in an area covered by permit parking bar one street. Local residents were concerned about the construction phase, having already had issues with previous developments in the area. Two housing providers had objected to the application, along with the Local GP surgery. The proposed 261 bed spaces would only serve to have increased noise emanation.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the issues raised had already been set out in the report and there was nothing useful to add. However, they did note that one of the previous applications that had been refused, had that decision overturned on appeal.

 

A member stated they would like to propose Minded to Refuse on two grounds. The first of these was the scale of the proposal on such a small site. The member felt this would be detrimental to the area visually and would dominate the area with its size. Their second ground for Minded to Refuse was that under National Planning Policy Framework, parking should be provided in close proximity to the entrance for those with disabilities. The member felt this could not be seen in the application.

 

A second member sought clarity on the Community Hub offered as part of the development. They stated that the late representations had informed them that the Community Hub would be available for hire by any Hulme based group but that was subject to the developer or owners’ approval. The member felt that this could allow the developer or owner to only allow those groups they liked to use the space. The member then sought clarity on if students living in the accommodation would be eligible for a parking permit in the area and how the application could suggest there is robust evidence for the need of extra student accommodation when a former student block has been recently converted for a different use.

 

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that they could impose conditions on the use of the Community Hub should they be Minded to Approve. Their instinct was that students would not have been eligible for a parking permit but did not have a definitive answer. The Planning Officer then informed the Committee that a report had gone to the Executive in 20/21 that discussed the issue of student need for accommodation. They stated this report provided clear evidence of a number of students choosing to live in mainstream student accommodation both in and around the City Centre.

 

A member then sought clarity on the affordability of the accommodation, seeking a ballpark figure on the costs for students.

 

The Planning Officer stated that 20% of the accommodation was aimed at being affordable but could not provide an exact figure on costs.

 

Councillor Flanagan moved Minded to Refuse. Councillors Leech and Andrews seconded the proposal.

 

Decision

 

The Committee agreed Minded to Refuse on the basis of the scale of the application and the parking issues in the area.

Supporting documents: