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

The Committee considered the reports of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning the erection of a three-storey Class F1 (a) (Provision of education) building comprising a 20 no. classrooms, an assembly space, study centre, staff rooms and associated accommodation following the demolition of the existing single-storey building and partial demolition of the St Vincent's building together with a phased landscaping scheme; boundary treatments; cycle parking; and, car parking.

The application proposals seek approval for the provision of a teaching

block for the Loreto Sixth Form College on a site which lies to the immediate south of

the existing College campus. The site is owned by the City Council and was

previously leased to the Ministry of Justice who provided Probation Services from the

single storey building on the site from the late 1980s early 1990s until 2021.

Due to its long-standing reputation of academic excellence, the college was consistently oversubscribed with nearly 3 applications received for each available place. It was operating at capacity with no further flexibility to accommodate the ever-growing demand for places. This situation will be exacerbated owing to demographic growth in the Manchester region. ONS data indicated growth of circa 20-30% in 16 18-year-olds over the next 5-10 years. In order to meet this forecasted demand, the college had put in place a capital plan that focused on a new teaching block located on the application site. A grant application was submitted to the Department of Education in November 2022, which was approved, and confirmation obtained in May 2022 for the provision of new teaching accommodation proposed by these application proposals.

Nearby properties were notified of the proposals with letters sent to 191 addresses, in addition a site notice was posted, and an advertisement placed in the Manchester Evening News notifying of the application proposals. In response, comments were received from 1 Manchester resident together with comments from ward members raising concerns around: the perceived inefficient use of land, impacts on air quality, transport implications of the proposals, and the notification process undertaken.

The Planning Officer noted that funding for the application had been received on a time-limited basis and that there was an urgent need to provide post-16 education places. The situation relating to transport and car parking was being looked at in more detail outside the application.

Councillor Igbon addressed the Committee as a local resident. It was noted that residents had not received information regarding the application and concerns had been raised that had not been addressed. The college has a negative impact for residents in terms of vehicles, pollution, noise, anti-social behaviour, and litter. The plan to extend was a lack of responsibility to the community, with an additional 500 people proposed to be attending the college. Within the application, there was a lack of an Active Travel Plan lack which would cause severe impact to residents. The Travel Plan enclosed as part of the application was not fit for purpose and a comprehensive plan should be worked on between the college and other stakeholders, including residents, according to Councillor Igbon in their capacity as a local resident.

The applicant then addressed the Committee, stating that there was a shortage of post-16 places, and the proposal would increase capacity at the college. The college had received a grant for the expansion. They were aware of the ongoing traffic issues and were happy to work with stakeholders and residents to alleviate those problems, as had already been happening. The college was involved in a wide range of environmental issues. The application proposed 96 cycle spaces. All students at the college would receive Carbon Literacy training. The applicant stated that they had consulted on the proposals locally and that they wanted to continue to support the local area.

Councillor Wright addressed the Committee as a ward councillor, querying why there appeared to be a separate process for the active travel plan. Councillor Wright noted that the issue related to traffic. A recent air quality assessment was completed that showed an improvement since stopping 2-way traffic, and more traffic would have a detrimental effect on this. Councillor Wright stated that the college had referenced it not being safe to cycle, yet the application contained a lot of information about cycling.

The Chair questioned if an active travel plan can be included as a condition. The Chair also asked if the Director of Planning could write to the college to stress the importance of engagement with residents.

The Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing stated that they would write to the college regarding engagement. It was noted that there is a proposed condition attached to the application regarding a travel plan [Condition 16]. The Director suggested that this condition could be reworded to link this travel plan with the wider travel plan for the whole of the college and to develop a plan for communication and engagement; and that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, the wording of this condition could be delegated to the Chair and Director of Planning.

The Planning Officer noted that 191 addresses were provided notification of the application, with more also sent by the college. It was stated that this went beyond the statutory requirements. The Planning Officer accepted that a formal travel plan would be included, alongside improvements to the public realm. They noted that the proposed extension would be an energy efficient building.

A member raised concerns that there would be an impact on residents from the increased traffic. They stated that resident should be involved in the creation of the travel plan and improvement is needed in the ongoing engagement strategy.

A member also stated that the travel plan needed to include a reduction of air pollution, but noted their support with the amendments to conditions as referenced by the Director of Planning.

Councillor Shaukat Ali moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve.

Councillor Andrews seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application subject to conditions with authority delegated to the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing in conjunction with Chair to redraft Condition 16 as discussed.