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

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control

and Licensing that described that the Planning and Highways Committee were

‘minded to refuse’ this proposal on 30 June 2022 on the basis that it would be one

storey taller than set out in the Piccadilly Basin Strategic Regeneration

Framework (SRF).

 

The proposal was for 481 homes with two commercial units in a part-33, part-11, part

9 part 7 storey building with hard and soft landscaping. 211 letters of objection had

been 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 were keen to see it brought back to life but

objected 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 and Highways Committee were ‘minded to refuse’ this proposal on 30

June 2022 on the basis that it would be one storey taller than set out in the Piccadilly

Basin SRF. They requested officers to present a further report with a potential

reason for refusal.

 

The applicant had subsequently revised the scheme and had reduced the height to

33 storeys in order to fully comply with the Piccadilly Basin SRF. In light of this,

officers could not present a potential reason for refusal.

 

The scheme would be consistent with the height indicated in the Piccadilly Basin

SRF. The manner in which it complied with approved planning policies was clearly

set out and addressed in the report. It was these policies that must form the basis of

decisions made by the Local Planning Authority, including the Planning and

Highways Committee. Planning law required that applications for planning

permission are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material

considerations indicated otherwise.

 

The report concluded that Officers considered that the scheme was acceptable and

should be approved.

 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee by making reference to the late

representations, one of which had been received at noon on the day of the meeting.

The Chair stated that there were to be no more late representations to be considered

where they were received with 48 hours of the Planning and Highway Committee

meeting.

 

An objector, representing local residents, addressed the Committee on the

application. She stated that residents had welcomed the Committee’s previous

decisions to be ‘minded to refuse’ and supported the challenge provided by

Members to Officer recommendations. She stated that it remained the opinion of

residents that the proposal was inconsistent with the Piccadilly Strategic

Regeneration Framework, the Ancoats and New Islington Neighbourhood

Development Framework and the ambitions for the Northern Quarter. She stated that

it was her opinion that precedent had been set to refuse this application when other

applications had been refused in the locality due to the size of the proposed

development. She stated that the need to develop the site appropriately and

sympathetically was recognised however the application proposed was contrary and

incompatible with the Strategic Regeneration Framework. She further referred to the

detrimental impact the proposal would have on sunlight, particularly on the local

school, the detrimental impact on the historic nature of the area, parking and

highways and the inadequate provision of public realm. She concluded by asking the

Committee to refuse the application.

 

The applicant addressed the Committee on the application.

 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee by acknowledging the comments

expressed by both the objector and agent. He said that the issues raised by both had

previously been articulated and discussed at previous meetings when this

application had been considered by the Committee. He reiterated that the sole

reason the Committee had given to refuse at the meeting in June was on height, that

is the higher building was one storey higher than in the SRF, and this had been

addressed by the applicant.

 

A member spoke on the application and stated that the scale of the development

would compromise various schemes and conservation sites in the local area and

added that the reduction in height by 1 floor did not provide any reason for them to

approve the application.

 

The Planning Officer stated that there was also a requirement to assess the public

benefits of the scheme and noted that the report addressed this balance.

Councillor Flanagan stated that the previous concern was about exceeding the

recommended height as set out by the Piccadilly SRF; going by the evidence

provided and recommendations deemed appropriate in the SRF, he felt that the

proposal was now suitable and agreed the officer’s recommendation of Minded to

Approve.

 

Another member stated that they felt that they could not support this amended

proposal and expressed that the reduction by 1 storey would not make a huge

difference. The member felt that there was still an issue with affordable housing at

the site and noted that the Committee did not feel that the £1m contribution towards

affordable housing across the city was acceptable at the first application hearing in

May 2022, stating that the profits made from the scheme could in fact support

affordable housing on-site.

 

The Planning Officer stated that there had been 'no minded to refuse' at previous

meetings based on affordable housing, adding that the profit margin would now be

lower due to the reduction of the scheme and that it could be difficult to defend a

reason for refusal on this ground should the matter go to an appeal.

 

Councillor Andrews stated that he had supported a Minded to Refuse decision in

June 2022 due to the excessive height under the Piccadilly SRF policy but explained

that he now supported Councillor Flanagan’s move to Approve the application and

Councillor Andrews seconded the proposal.

 

Decision

 

The Committee resolved that it is Minded to Approve the application, subject to the

signing of a section 106 agreement in relation to an initial off site affordable housing

contribution, with a future review of the affordable housing position.