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 proposed the erection of two, part 8, part 4 storey buildings and refurbishment of the southern part of the Ancoats Works building to Pollard Street to form 183 residential apartments and 10 duplex apartments (Use Class C3a) together with flexible commercial space (Use Class E/Sui Generis) (274 sqm) with associated landscaping, car and cycle parking and associated works following demolition and partial demolition of existing buildings.

Listed building consent was also sought for removal of an existing roof structure between Hope Mill and Ancoats Works, the replacement of existing gates fronting Pollard Street, and associated works in connection with the residential led development of Ancoats Works.

Nine letters of objection, and one letter of support had been received from surrounding residents and businesses within Hope Mill.  The objections related to, but were not restricted to, a lack of parking, loss of daylight to local businesses, scale and massing, loss of heritage assets and a lack of S106 contribution.

The Planning Officer did not have anything to add to the report and late representations received.

An objector attended and addressed the Committee on the application, raising concerns in relation to the size of the development and the impact it would have on the local community.  It was stated that the application would remove a local historic landmark and the proposed development had non-descript features.  Concern was also raised in relation to size or the development and associated loss of daylight to existing residents and the impact the development would have on the local infrastructure, including increased traffic that the proposed development would have.

The applicant’s agent attended and addressed the Committee, advising that the proposals would be respectful of nearby listed buildings to ensure heritage assets in the area remained dominant.  It was stated that the proposed development met and exceeded design standards and would result in £35m investment into the local economy.  Significant mitigation would be undertaken to protect existing commercial businesses that neighboured the site and extensive landscaping would also take place, proving attractive, safe communal areas for residents

Councillor Good (Ward Councillor Ancoats and Beswick) attended and addressed the Committee. He raised concerns about the lack of affordable housing in the development.  The development proposed 193 units with non being affordable, which did not accord with the Council’s policy around affordable housing

Further, he raised concerns that there was no proposed parking provision and he also felt that the sustainable transport element was not sufficient as there was little connected cycle infrastructure to the development.

He requested that the Committee rejected the planning application in its current form. He stated that to meet Council policy the application should at a minimum provide 20% affordable housing units, or the applicant contributed made an equivalent financial contribution (20%) for off-site affordable housing.

The Planning Officer provided clarification on the issues raised by the objector.  He stated that the application was not a large development compared to surrounding developments and that the area needed to change as the impact of growth of the city centre continued to move outwards.  He advised that the site was unappealing in its current form and contributed little to the area.  In relation to affordable housing, he assured the Committee that the Council rigorously tested the viability assessments to all housing development proposals.  The profit margin for the development was 17.5% and regardless of what this equated to in monetary terms, Government had set a minimum profit margin of 20% on site, therefore the Council wasn’t able to secure a Section 106 Agreement that gave a financial contribution upfront. There would however, a clawback mechanism put in place.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions to the Planning Officer.

Councillor Lovecy addressed the Committee and sought clarity as to whether the conditions attached do the application would ensure that all of the properties would be effective against becoming AirB&B type usage. She also sought confirmation as to who would have access to the new proposed pubic realm and what steps were being taken in relation to acoustic and noise mitigation

The Planning Officer advised that the conditions attached to the application would protect against the properties being used as AirB&B.  He confirmed that the proposed public realm would be for residents only and acknowledged that the issue around acoustics had been challenging and work had been undertaken to ensure those neighbouring businesses could still operate

Councillor Curley enquired as to whether there was any opportunity for additional disabled parking provision and what mechanism was being used to exclude residents in this develop from having to apply and purchase parking permits from the existing scheme.

The Planning Officer advised that a condition could be included to review additional disabled parking if the Committee was minded to agree this.  He added that Officers were working with the City Solicitor to identify a mechanism that would exclude residents in this development from applying for a parking permit.  This could not be achieved through a Section 106 Agreement but possible a Section 111 Agreement.

Councillor Andrews proposed a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve subject to the completion of the legal agreement associated with planning application 133324/FO/2022 and the inclusion of a condition to review additional disabled parking provision.

Councillor Curley seconded Councillor Andrew’s proposal.

Decision

The Committee is Minded to Approve the application subject to the completion of the legal agreement associated with planning application 133324/FO/2022 and the inclusion of a condition to review additional disabled parking provision.