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 a part 7, part 11 storey purpose built student accommodation building comprising 197 bed spaces (56no. studios, 14 no. threedios, 10 no. cluster units (Sui Generis use class).

The Committee was minded to refuse an application for a part 9 part 13 storey

(PBSA) building providing 261 bed spaces on 31st May 2022 on the basis of the scale of the application and the shortages of parking spaces for disabled people.

There were objections to original scheme including neighbours, ‘Block the Block’ a resident-led campaign supported by Hopton Hopefuls, Aquarius Tenants and Residents Association, Hulme Community Forum and On Top of the World Hulme, Hopton Hopefuls, 2 employees of Manchester University, a GP practice on Booth Street West, the Guinness Partnership and One Manchester. 3 representations were also received from members of the public supporting the proposal. Councillor Annette Wright and Lucy Powell MP objected.

Revised drawings were submitted to address the above reasons for refusal; 25 objections from neighbours and an objection from ‘Block the Block’ were

subsequently received.

Members were minded to refuse a revised scheme on 20 October 2022 on the basis of scale and dominant visual impact and the lack of parking in close proximity to the entrance for those with disabilities and the use of on-street spaces for disabled parking spaces.

The Late Reps report stated that 20% of the bedspaces would be available at a 20% discount of market rent. The recommendation was altered to Minded to Approve subject to a legal agreement regarding the containing affordable rent obligations.

An additional representation from Councillor Wright referred to the previous Minded to Refuse decision. The Chair confirmed that 2 objectors were to address the Committee, sharing the 4 minutes allotted speaking time between them.

The first was a tenant of Hopton Court and had lived in Hulme all his life. Hulme had undergone many changes, not all good. He got involved with the Tenant’s Committee at Hopton Court and arranged for tables and benches to be placed outside. Then they managed to arrange for Hopton Court to be specifically for the 50+ age group and retired people. With the addition of Birley Fields campus and now this proposal for PBSA across the road he felt that this as too much for the neighbourhood. This was a piling in of students that would erode the community. Noise and litter were already a problem and Hopton Court was designed with bedrooms at the front of the building, making sleeping spaces only 20/30 yards away from the development.

Other people in the building had been persuaded to join THOSE spending time in the outside area and this development would be a detriment to this outdoor space. The local GP were also concerned over the impact of this scheme and felt that the impact would be huge. In closing his objection statement, the objector stated that he did not know why this application had come before the Committee again.

The second stated that this proposal would negatively affect the amenity of residents and tenants. The north face of the apartments in her building were second bedrooms and, in many cases, children’s bedrooms. This proposal was close to neighbouring dwellings and the overshadowing would have an impact on the energy bills. There were concerns over the disabled parking bays, a nearby cul-de-sac and loss of access. The objector stated that she was a blue badge holder and implored the Committee to refuse the application.

The agent stated that this is a sustainable location and recognised that the developer had to respect existing tenants. They took this seriously and offered a free community hub space. This developer was an experienced operator and would create a move-in and move-out strategy. 3 additional disabled parking spaces had been created on-site and students would not be permitted to own cars. Deliveries would be made within specified hours and an engagement plan had been created regarding litter picking in the vicinity and a contact point for regular liaison with the community. If approved, the proposal would regenerate the site. Access would be available throughout construction to all roads.

Ward Councillor Wright noted previous decisions in October 2022 and May 2023 and reasons for refusal plus other historical refusals from 2008 and 2012. She felt that the daylight and sunlight issues were more impactful due to dwellings being single aspect at Hopton Court. The only open space for tenants is an outside area and some tenants already suffer with vitamin D deficiency. There was no need for student accommodation in this residential area. The application was opposed by the local GP and many more. Tenants had been assured there would be no impact on this site but were right to oppose this application. The accommodation on offer is not good enough to house students. Some areas of the development have no natural light, would be overshadowed and have no outside space. Developers see the site as a

blight but residents see it as their area.

Ward Councillor Igbon stated that this site has looked the same for decades with no investment in the area. The developers were looking to make money and there were concerns over traffic and deliveries. The application stated that students would not be allowed to have cars but this was out of the developer’s control and students with cars would have to use local on street parking which was also a concern. The local GP is the second busiest surgery in Manchester and the impact of an additional 200 people living in this area would create huge impacts to the community. Trees would have to be removed, one of which had a TPO. As a resident of the area, Councillor

Igbon felt there was a blasé attitude from the developers and while a place for

students to live was needed, this was the wrong site.

Ward Councillor Bayunu was shocked to see the officer’s recommendation was no longer for refusal. Whilst she agreed that Manchester needed PBSAs, the impact to the community and amenities could not be ignored. 20% of the residents at Hopton Court have vitamin D deficiency, depression and anxiety. Allowing this development to go ahead would add to these problems. This was an area made up of older and deprived people and Councillor Bayunu wished to see the community improved.

The Planning Office stated that the previous Minded to Refuse decision was based on the scale and lack of parking. The Committee asked officers to identify reasons for refusal. A previous appeal had allowed a building of a similar scale and a reason could not be provided. 3 additional parking spaces for disabled people had been created on Camelford Close. Students are choosing where they want to live and are taking up family homes.

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

Councillor Lovecy stated that she had been present for other, previous applications on this site. Officers had stated that there were no grounds for a Minded to Refuse decision but Councillor Lovecy added that the area was nor appropriate for a PBSA scheme. It was not a sustainable location for a mixed use of this kind. PBSA should be on sites where there would be no impact on residential neighbourhoods. Hopton Court has become a 50+ age group block and Manchester should allow for places that older people can remain in. In terms of the appeal against the previous decision, this was before the city council had confirmed their PBSA policy and the inspector will not have considered this policy in their decision. The impact of daylight and

sunlight on adjacent buildings adds further weight against approving this

development. Better sites were available and the sustained impact on this residential neighbourhood in addition to the scale and massing were grounds for the Committee to move a Minded to Refuse proposal.

Councillor Davies questioned whether the 20% reduced rate would be applied if the developer were to sell the building. She stated that she had lived in her building for 17 years with a north facing window, therefore having little natural light. To lose any more light, as would be the case for residents concerned here, would create an impact on health, energy bills and general wellbeing. This was a good location for older people who know their neighbours and enjoy life. The developer’s suggestions on banning cars and late deliveries could not practically be implemented. In terms of the litter picking, while welcomed, shows that there is an expectation of increased litter problems and it was unlikely there would be litter picking early on a Sunday.

Councillor Davies stated that she could not see this litter picking scheme working well. Residents already housed in this area enjoy living there and, whilst there was a need for students to free up housing stock for families, their lifestyles were often at odds with communities when mixed together

The Planning Officer stated that the 2008 decision was not based on PBSA but on scale and massing, which was more or less the same. A the Section 106 agreement was binding on the developer and any subsequent owner. It was residents who had identified existing litter problems that needed to be addressed. It was true that nobody could be stopped people form owning a car but students would not be allowed to have a residents parking permit. The issue of GP access is a problem across the city and the city council have many discussions about addressing this.

Councillor Curley stated that this was a difficult application of competing interests. Officers are working to the national framework, which should make decisions easier but for the concerns of residents and Ward Councillors. The council bought into the regeneration of Hulme for family lives and there was a commitment from people moving into the area. These competing pressures put the Committee in a position of having to have a full understanding of officer’s and resident’s viewpoints. Councillor Curley noted that some students come to Manchester, stay and contribute greatly to the city and the economy. The application here today was 2 storeys higher that the application from 2008. Councillor Curley concluded by stating that he was on the side of the residents as it was the right thing to do due to the potential for overlooking,

shadowing, noise and parking issues. This way, it would be better for the

communities in Hulme.

Councillor S Ali stated that he knew the site as a vacant eyesore for maybe 15 years. Previously, the application had been determined by the Committee with a Minded to Refuse decision due to parking issues and the height of the proposed development. Officers had been asked to take the application away and address these issues, which they had done and Councillor S Ali stated he would now support the application.

The Planning Officer addressed an earlier comment from Councillor Curley and confirmed that the current application was not for 2 extra storeys in height but was the same height as the 2008 application.

The Director of Planning stated that this was a very challenging application having its fourth appearance before the Committee. The application was not dismissive of issues surrounding the proposal and a very detailed report had been presented.

Having looked at a possible Minded to Refuse decision, it was deemed as not

sustainable as the scale and parking had been addressed.

Councill Johnson referred to the site designation in the report stating that this is the right site, yet it appeared that it was not and asked how this can be confirmed. The Planning Officer stated this was covered in the report under Planning Policy terms.

Councillor Lovecy proposed a Minded to Refuse decision due to a PBSA of this size being contrary to sustainable neighbourhoods. The city council’s own PBSA policy does not mean that the Committee have to agree to approve this application. She added that this was not a suitable site.

Councillor Curley seconded the proposal.

The Director of Planning confirmed to all present that the Committee’s decision was not a final determination but a deferral. The decision would be taken away to be determined whether the Committee’s reason was suitable.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Refuse due to a PBSA of this size being contrary to sustainable neighbourhoods in keeping with the city council’s PBSA Policy.