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 proposal would create 128 homes in two apartment buildings and 10 townhouses. The apartment buildings are 8 and 5 storeys and the townhouses 3 storey. Parking, public realm and landscaping would be provided. The proposal is the first project the City Council’s ‘This City’ housing company which seeks to develop high quality, low carbon housing for all Mancunians as part of boosting the City’s housing supply which includes providing affordable housing.

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

The agent addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this development represented high quality homes for all with a low carbon impact for Manchester residents. This was a new venture looking at building 500 homes per year, self-finance with all profits going towards affordable housing. Rates would be capped for the unwaged and low waged and protected in perpetuity. There would be a premiere service for all tenures. All dwelling to be adaptable for disabled and older people and will meet national space requirements. The development would be of a sensitive building design with landscaped public realm and sustainable water, carbon, pollution, waste and recycling features. The scheme would be fitted out with electric cycle and car charging facilities and create many jobs in the development phase with Manchester residents having priority. The scheme would create more Council Tax revenue and much needed affordable homes in Manchester.

The Planning Officer had nothing further to add.

A member stated that this was a much needed development in this area but would like to discuss issues around parking. The report had mentioned that there would be no impact on local parking arising from the scheme. The member felt that this was disingenuous and also raised the distribution of disabled parking within the scheme whilst noting that the Ancoats Parking Policy could be considered for this site, as the scope was extended by The Leader of the Council. The member asked the Planning Officer to raise the issue of the 38 rented dwellings being included in the aforementioned parking scheme.

The Planning Officer stated that this could be picked up within the scope of the residents’ parking scheme to address their needs.

A member asked if the townhouses were part of the affordable housing stock in the site and the Planning Officer confirmed this to be the case.

The member went on to say that this was very welcome and atypical for Planning applications in general. He added that there may be a design issue with flat rooves, stating that this has created problems in his own ward. The member also questioned whether residents of the townhouses could receive parking permits, in line with the previous member’s request for other residents in affordable housing on the site and whether those not in affordable housing have access to parking permits, some clarification on the mobility hub charges.

The Planning Officer stated that residents’ parking was a separate process and cannot be linked to a Planning application but confirmed that parking issues hadn’t yet been fully prepared. The affordable housing stock could be included in the parking policy and this would be reported back for consultation. Regarding the mobility hub, there was no current operator confirmed and no pricing strategy. For parking and travel, the current scheme had 47 spaces linked to 128 homes which is consistent with MCC policy and this was how the scheme should be measured for making a determination.

A member stated that she was supportive of the scheme but asked if the disabled car parking spaces could be spread out instead of being allocated all at the same building.

The Planning Officer stated that he would modify/add a condition to address this.

Councillor S Ali moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application with the additional condition to distribute disabled parking bays around the site.

Councillor Flanagan seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application subject to the addition of the aforementioned condition.

(Councillor Richards declared an interest and took no part in the hearing or decision making process).