Manchester City Council

Agenda item

Agenda item

121085/FO/2018 - Land To The Rear Of Crumpsall Constitutional Club Linn Street Manchester M8 5SN

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

Minutes:

The application site measures approximately 0.24 ha in size, is fairly uniform regular in shape and is located with a street frontage onto Linn Street in the Crumpsall ward of the City. The site is comprised of a former private bowling green that forms part of the wider Crumpsall Constitutional Club site. The Club itself is located on Landsdowne Road, however the club house does not form part of the application site and would remain as a separate entity.

 

The bowling green itself has not been used for some time and has fallen into disrepair. The site has become overgrown and is now a mixture of grass and self seeded shrubs and plants. The trees that were previously planted across the site have all been felled recently, but before the submission of this planning application.

 

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposals and said that these would be affordable apartments which would help to meet local residential needs.  He said that the scheme is no more dense than the surrounding area, and that they had sought to work positively with officers without any feedback.  He said that officers had advised that they not complete a consultation process, but that they were then criticised by Ward Councillors for not doing so. 

 

He also told the Committee that this development was the only viable option for the site, otherwise it would be abandoned.

 

Councillor Nasrin Ali spoke in objection to the proposals and said that prior to the application all mature trees had been felled.  She pointed out that the shared ownership proposals would not be affordable as it was based on being offered for private rent or sale.

 

Councillor Ali also pointed out that the area was heavily congested and that this scheme and the traffic it would generate would only make the matter much worse.  She said that local residents acknowledge that they need more housing, but did not support this development in this location.  She asked the Committee to support the officers recommendation for refusal.

 

Officers confirmed that there was no guarantee that the apartments would be affordable, as this would require a S106 agreement to be agreed to be enforceable. 

 

Officers advised the Committee that they had not yet reached the point of being able to interrogate a viability assessment, and they were still not satisfied that all the other concerns they raised had been satisfied.  There is no alternative scheme on the table to be assessed.  Officers also confirmed that all policies are applied on a case by case basis, which officers do not think that the circumstances of this proposal are appropriate for the scheme on offer.

 

The Committee concluded that the demand in the north of the City is for the provision of family housing, and that the proposed development for a high density apartment scheme is unacceptable in principle. The applicant has not made a case for high density development and the accommodation does not follow the principles of traditional family dwellinghouses suitable for supporting families and sustainable communities. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to policies SP1, H1 and H3 of the Core Strategy.

 

The Committee further concluded that the proposed development is an inappropriate form of development which represents overdevelopment of the site and does not take into account the context of the site and is not informed by its surroundings, having a poor relationship with adjoining residential properties.

 

The impact of this high density, overdeveloped site would be seriously detrimental to the character, context and visual amenity of the neighbourhood and surrounding area, and would not result in the positive and successful regeneration of the area. It is considered that the development would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of surrounding residents, due to its height, scale, and close location to the site boundaries, which would result in problems of overlooking and loss of outlook from adjoining properties and their garden areas. In addition the creation of 28 apartments would lead to a significant intensification in general activity at the site, compared to the previous use, with the resulting increase in noise, all of which would have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of surrounding residents, contrary to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Manchester Core Strategy and saved policy DC26 of the UDP.

 

Decision

 

To refuse to grant the application for the reasons given in the report and the late representation.

 

Supporting documents: