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

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that presented an application proposing the demolition of all non-listed buildings (with exception of partial retention of the Rosenfield Building facade), partial demolition and alterations to 29 Shudehill, and erection of a new building comprising ground floor plus part 2, part7, part 8, and part 19 storey to include 175 residential units (Use Class C3) together with flexible ground floor commercial

floorspace (Use Class E), new public realm, cycle parking (90 spaces),

and other associated works.

The development would redevelop a largely vacant site that contains heritage

assets. These make a positive contribution to the street scene, the character of the

conservation area and setting of adjacent listed buildings. Their setting and character

could be improved through appropriate regeneration. The site is fragmented and

disjointed, but the wider townscape of the conservation area has visual cohesion,

from its complementary massing, layout and form of its buildings.

The proposals would provide 175 homes and commercial units but the form of

development: would not be of an appropriate quality; would not enhance its

surrounding to an acceptable level; and would not deliver a coherent development

which properly responds to context, or which maintains the areas prevailing

character and setting. The harm to heritage assets would not be outweighed by

public benefits.

The development would be car free. Cycle parking is proposed but this would be less

than 1 space per apartment.

Objections have also been received from Historic England and the Victorian Society.

71 letters of objection have been received from 2 rounds of notification concerned

about the use, design and impact on heritage assets impact on amenity including on

future residents from existing noise sources (agent of change), servicing and

highways impacts, construction impacts and sunlight and daylight impacts. An

objection has also been received from and Save Britain’s Heritage.

The Planning Officer stated that there had been 3 letters of objection and 1 of support since publication of the initial agenda.

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this was a complex site requiring regeneration. The applicant had worked with Council Officers, and it was with regret that these Officers stated that they could not support the application. The applicant was of the opinion that the scheme should be approved and referred to information of some support within the report. The site was a current blight on the area, was in need of development and the agent stated that they did not share the views of objectors concerning the heritage aspect and scale. Regarding the scale of the project, the agent stated that all heritage assets were considered for retention, but this had been proved impossible. This viewpoint was included and validated by a third-party assessor. The agent expressed that the area was suitable for tall buildings. Regarding the design of the scheme, the agent stated that this had been undertaken by a leading design studio, Buttress, who had applied considerable skill. The façade and design were of a good standard with high quality brickwork proposed. With regard to the heritage aspect of the current plot, the agent stated that it was in need of repair, referring to the nearby Glassworks as an appropriate comparison which managed a mix of old and new in one setting. The agent agreed that there would be some harm from the development, but this would be less than substantial. The report set out other benefits, such as 220 associated jobs and pedestrianised area. In conclusion, the scheme would offer optimum use of this derelict site and would result in less than substantial harm to heritage assets, but this needed to be balanced against the public benefits. It is on the matter of this balance where the applicant disagreed with the opinion of Councill Officers as it would outweigh any harm caused. The agent requested the Committee consider the NPPF test to determine the application and bring this site back into use.

The Planning Officer stated that this application was accompanied by a very long officer report, and all issues were covered within it. He stated that the agent had not raised any new issues in their representation at the meeting. The Planning Officer did agree that the scheme constituted less than substantial harm but added that this scheme was at the higher end of such measurements and the public benefits would need to be greater to outweigh this, but the scheme was too large and damaging. The Planning Officer considered the comparison with Glassworks irrelevant. The scheme has brought about long discussions as it is noted that the area needs developing, but not at any cost.

The Chair invited Committee members to ask questions/add comments.

Councillor Lyons stated that he was in agreement with the Planning Officer, in that the harm would be too great. Councillor Lyons stated he would have expected to see some affordable housing on the site to outweigh the harm and put some balance towards public benefit. He questioned if the area was perhaps better for less residential properties, such as hotels/hospitality due to the busy nature of the area with two transport hubs in the immediate vicinity.

The Planning Officer stated that housing/residential units could work in this location adding that there was no policy reason to refuse any such development at this site but did agree that other uses may work.

Councillor Andrews referred to the reasons for refusal on pages 131 and 132 of the printed report and stated that he felt these were adequate for him to move the recommendation of Refuse for both applications.

Councillor Lyons seconded the proposal.

Decision 

The Committee resolved to Refuse both applications for the reasons as set out in the reports submitted.