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 for a part 7 part 11 storey purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) building providing 197 bed spaces. The Committee was ‘minded to refuse’ a proposal for a part 9 part 13 storey (PBSA) building providing 261 bed spaces on 31 May 2022 as the scale was over dominant and the lack of parking in close proximity to the entrance for those with disabilities.

There were 72 objections to the original submission from neighbours, an objection from ‘Block the Block’, Aquarius Tenants and Residents Association, Hulme Community Forum, On Top of the World Hulme, Hopton Hopefuls, a letter from 2 employees of Manchester University, the GP practice on Booth Street West, the Guinness Partnership and One Manchester and 3 representations from members of the public supporting the proposal. Councillors Annette Wright and Lucy Powell MP objected to the scheme considered in May. There were 25 objections from neighbours and an objection from ‘Block the Block’ to the revised proposal.

Councillors Wright and Igbon objected for the reasons the Committee were Minded to Refuse the earlier application and a resident objected on the grounds of overdevelopment, the council should plan for local people in Hulme and the site should accommodate 3 or 4 storey extra care homes. The council should utilise its CPO powers.

The application had been amended to reduce the height to that agreed on appeal. Ten parking spaces, were proposed for disabled people in close proximity to the site. As such a refusal could not be substantiated. 

Sally Casey (Chair - Aquarius Tenants and Residents Association) addressed the Committee to object to the application. The issue of the growing number of students attending the Universities and the problems, in finding accommodation is not the fault of the people of Hulme and student accommodation should be better balanced across Manchester rather than being concentrated in Hulme and Moss Side. Hulme has already accommodated the new university developments, and this could not continue. The amended application is inappropriate, is over development and is bigger than the residential blocks adjacent to it. The proposal would have a negative impact on the community, particularly young people. The limited size of the rooms in the building may have a negative impact on students. The Committee was requested to refuse the application.

The applicant’s agent explained how the application has been amended to address the points raised by Committee, including a reduction in the height by three storeys, ie 20% to that similar to a scheme agreed on appeal in 2008. The number of bedrooms had reduced from 261 to 197. Ten on street parking spaces will be converted to spaces for disabled people. Students need a safe and secure, centrally located home and a place to study and Hulme is close to places of study. Purpose built student stock is one of the Council’s only tools in managing the increase in the use of properties in residential areas. There is not enough student accommodation, and the growth of the universities will impact further with overseas students significantly increasing (2022-2026). Students are commuting because of a lack of appropriate locations in Manchester. A community space will be available to the local community. The development will provide £20m of investment and jobs and will provide benefits to the area.

Councillor Wright (Hulme ward) stated that the proposal has not changed much. The building does not benefit the area or community. The reasons for refusal still apply. The scale and massing remained a concern and will be taller than both Cooper House and Hopton Court. The parking converts existing parking spaces into those for disabled people. People who drive and work in the city centre and study locally all park on the streets in the area and this does not provide a solution to the reason to refuse. The building restricts/reduces natural light into adjacent homes and may impact on the health of residents through reduced vitamin D levels. The number of people being attracted to the area is too high. The developers have not properly demonstrated that there is need for this type of student accommodation in Hulme. Students are sharing residential houses in Hulme because it is cheaper and better than that proposed. International students are buying accommodation because they will not live in this type of student accommodation which then reduces the availability of homes. The Committee is requested to be minded to refuse the application for the reasons stated. If the Committee is unsure, then a site visit would help members to see the small size of the site and the impact the development will have on nearby homes.

Councillor Igbon (Hulme ward) explained that the Aquarius area of Hulme is surrounded by university buildings and that gives an idea of the number of people attending the ward on a daily basis and the impact this has on the lives of the people who live there. Students were located outside of Manchester as MMU, was not their first choice, and had been allocated via the clearing process. MMU have not considered the accommodation needs of the students or prepared appropriately for the numbers coming to the city. The proposal provides no amenity space and will not add to or improve the area. Students will need access local services and amenities and no reference has been made to the provision of green space. The site is located on a busy road junction and the application does not include any additional crossing facilities or provide a positive environmental change to support the community. The inclusion of a community space includes a number of conditions for the community for its use. The application assumes that students will not need parking spaces which is unrealistic. The inclusion of disabled parking is not sufficient, and it should be on site. The application does not provide any benefit for local residents or the area and shows a lack of consideration for those who may live in the proposed building with limited living space and amenity.    

The planning officer stated that the applicant could only respond to the reasons for Minded to Refuse given by the Committee, relating to height and massing and a lack of parking for disabled people. The height is within parameters that have been acceptable on appeal. The parking issue was addressed with ten spaces proposed near the site. 

The Chair referred to the terminology in the application that referred to student bed spaces and the similarity this has with the dispersal programme undertaken by the Home Office to provide accommodation for asylum seekers He believed that the language provided a negative image of Manchester and students who expect a good standard of accommodation. He referenced the recent pandemic and the challenges students faced when they were unable to leave their accommodation and the impact this had on mental health and wellbeing. The officer stated that the accommodation is similar to other student accommodation schemes across City and the country. It 6/8 bed cluster accommodation with separate study areas and on-suite facilities and shared-communal areas. Manchester has a shortage of student accommodation, and the proposal will help to address this need and free up the rented and social housing that is often used by students. 

Members spoke on the application and the committee was reminded that the Minded to Refuse decision was for the reason of the scale of the proposal and the dominant visual impact this would have on the area and the lack of parking in close proximity to the entrance for those with disabilities.

Councillor Flanagan stated that the height of the amended design is still too high. Provision of disabled parking in the proximity of the entrance, is a Council policy and has not been properly addressed. Students have the same requirements as all members of our society, including disabled parking spaces and developers should be held to account. The application does not improve safety for pedestrian at a busy junction. For those reasons, Councillor Flanagan stated that he was Minded to Refuse the application.

The officer stated that four spaces are proposed on Booth Street West. The proposal is of a similar height to that approved through the appeal process. The distance to Hopton Court is 44 metres and 21 metres to Cooper House. The issue of safety at the junction was not previously raised by members.   

Councillor Lyons commented that the development was unlikely to reduce the numbers of students living in multiple occupancy/ shared accommodation and city centre accommodation due to the cost of the new accommodation and the requirements of students who could afford more expensive, centrally located accommodation. The height and massing appeared to be excessive and for those reasons he was Minded to Refuse the application.

The officer stated that students live in different types of accommodation and this proposal would help to address an overall shortage. The Council is advised by the universities and accommodation providers that the city lacks this kind of cluster accommodation. The application provides a form of development that has been allowed on appeal and the committee should consider this carefully.

Councillor Leech referred to the disabled parking being off site and suggested that the spaces could be used by non-residents . On that basis the application should be Minded to Refuse.  

Councillor Richards noted the points and concerns raised but considered that the planning policy for student accommodation in residential areas did not strike the right balance and needed to be reconsidered.

The planning officer stated that policy H12 in the Core Strategy is key to determining if the application is appropriate.

Councillor Lovecy referred to policy H12 and questioned whether the location is compatible with existing development. The location is close to the Oxford Road corridor but is close to a residential neighbourhood with other similar high-rise buildings and Councillor Lovecy considered it to be over development and for those reasons she would be Minded to Refuse.

The officer stated that the concerns raised are addressed in the committee report.

Councillor Davies referred to student movements and their use of taxis and free buses which indicates that movement is not limited to walking. Students occupying other types of accommodation has impacted on the availability of family homes and had increased accommodation cost and land values. Officers were asked how policy H12 impacts on housing provision.

The planning officer stated that the committee is not considering land value in considering the application.

The Director of Planning informed the committee that consideration of the application should only be based on planning policies. Issues raised on the adequacy of the policies can be noted and can be discussed when policies are reviewed.

Councillor Andrews asked the City Solicitor’s to advise on the number of the times the Committee can be Minded to Refuse an application. The Committee was advised that there is no restriction, but the committee must provide planning related grounds and reasons for its decision. 

Councillor Andrews acknowledged the previous allowed decision referred to but stated that this proposal had to be considered on its own merit. He proposed the Committee to refuse the application, for the reason that local residents will be caused dis-amenity.

Councillor Lyons seconded the proposal.

The Director of Planning confirmed that because the Committee is considering an amended application, it could only be Minded to Refuse.

Councillor Flanagan proposed a Minded to Refuse for reasons relating to:

·         The scale of the proposal and the dominant visual impact this would have on the area.

·         The lack of parking in close proximity to the entrance for those with disabilities

·         The use of on-street spaces for disabled parking spaces.

·         Policy PH12 (3) – High density developments should be sited in locations where this is compatible with existing developments and initiatives, and where retail facilities are within walking distance. Proposals should not lead to an increase in on-street parking in the surrounding area

·         Policy PH12 (6) – Consideration should be given to the design and layout of the student accommodation and siting of individual uses within the overall development in relation to adjacent neighbouring uses. The aim is to ensure that there is no unacceptable effect on residential amenity in the surrounding area through increased noise, disturbance or impact on the streetscene either from the proposed development itself or when combined with existing accommodation.

Councillor Andrews withdrew the proposal to refuse the application.

Councillor Lyons seconded the proposal made by Councillor Flanagan. 

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         The scale of the proposal and the dominant visual impact this would have on the area.

·         The lack of parking in close proximity to the entrance for those with disabilities

·         The use of on-street spaces for disabled parking spaces.

·         Core Strategy - Policy PH12 (3) – High density developments should be sited in locations where this is compatible with existing developments and initiatives, and where retail facilities are within walking distance. Proposals should not lead to an increase in on-street parking in the surrounding area

·         Core Strategy - Policy PH12 (6) – Consideration should be given to the design and layout of the student accommodation and siting of individual uses within the overall development in relation to adjacent neighbouring uses. The aim is to ensure that there is no unacceptable effect on residential amenity in the surrounding area through increased noise, disturbance or impact on the streetscene either from the proposed development itself or when combined with existing accommodation.