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 the erection of 7-storey building comprising office and laboratory

floorspace (Use Class E); cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, access and

servicing.

 

An anchor tenant would occupy the ground, mezzanine and first floor, with the

remaining floors available for occupiers in the life science and healthcare sectors.

 

The anchor tenant is an internationally significant health research organisation that

would bring substantial direct and indirect socio-economic benefits to Manchester

Science Park (MSP) and the Corridor eco-system, and leverage MSP’s advantages

in terms of locational clustering with major knowledge and research institutions.

 

The proposal would contribute positively to the city’s economy creating jobs and

training opportunities in key growth sectors for residents and support growth through

graduate retention.

 

Four letters of objection had been received. The grounds of objections concern design, the nature of the use, traffic impacts, impacts on the residential character of the area and sunlight and daylight.

 

The Planning Officer did not add anything to the printed report.

 

An objector stated that the neighbourhood consultation did not make it clear what the

building would be used for. The height would cause overshadowing and there were

concerns over noise and possible unknown pathogens and the effect on air quality.

He questioned the purpose and work that would be undertaken in the laboratories

and commented on the change in class use. New drugs normally use some form of

animal testing and the objector felt that Hulme should be an animal testing and

vivisection free zone and asked the Committee to lead on ethical and political

decisions when considering this application.

 

The applicant’s agent that Bruntwood,have 40 years experience in delivering office,

research and lab spaces. This proposal would be a milestone for the science park

and enhance the capabilities of the university’s NHS foundation trust. The anchor

tenant and other high specification laboratories would attract occupiers in the science

and technology sectors. The proposal would add employment opportunities and

socio-economic benefits. No animal testing would be carried out on this site.

 

Ward Councillor Bayunu acknowledged the investment but also had to consider her

residents. She felt the developer should work with the community. There had been

some consultation but not all issues had been addressed. There would be more

development and she asked for all involved to be brought together and added as a

Council and Hulme as a Ward, should be animal testing and vivisection free zones.

 

Ward Councillor Wright noted that 9 trees would be replaced by 27 expressed having

had difficulties with other developers on this issue. Previous construction activity at

MSP had caused problems with contractors taking up parking spaces so a condition

on a construction plan would be welcomed. Daylight and sunlight would affect a small

number of residents but was still an important issue to raise. Some dwellings were

below balconies and received less sun and daylight. Jobs should be targeted at the

Hulme area and the area should be vivisection free. She supported the new

pedestrian crossing.

 

The Director of Planning stated that the Committee could take land use into account

but moral/ethical wishes could not be taken into account.

 

The Planning Officer stated that 27 trees are shown on the submitted plans. He

offered apologies regarding the impacts of previous construction activity. The impacts

on daylight and sunlight would be minimal because of existing overhanging

balconies. The developer would work with the works and skills team and engage with

the community.

 

Councillor Davies understood that the Committee could not take animal testing into

account but felt that the developer would be well advised to consider this especially

in this Ward. Bruntwood had caused problems to neighbouring residents and

residents should be able to access and park cars during construction. Councillor

Davies hoped for the construction plan would reflect this.

 

Councillor Johnson felt that a commitment to community engagement would be

useful and could be added as a condition if the Committee moved a Minded to

Approve decision and asked what this might look like.The Planning Officer stated that

there could be an additional condition in the construction plan to engage with the

community.

 

Councillor Curley expressed that this was a good report, well presented and felt that

any ongoing discussions with Bruntwood would be successful. Councillor Curley then

moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application

Councillor Kamal seconded the proposal.

Decision

 

The Committee resolved to move the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the

application subject to an additional condition whereby the developer amends the

construction plan to include community engagement and subject to conditions set out

in the report.