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 regarding the erection of a part 7, part 9 storey purpose-built student accommodation building comprising 146 bed spaces (Sui Generis use class) with ancillary amenity space, a ground floor community hub (proposed for Use Classes F2(b), E(b), E (3), E(f)) and associated landscape works and infrastructure.

A scheme was reported to Planning and Highways Committee on the 16 November

2023 for a part 7, part 9 storey PBSA building providing 146 bed spaces. The

Committee were ‘minded to refuse’ on the basis that PBSA of that size would have been contrary to maintaining a sustainable mixed residential neighbourhood and would lead to an imbalance of students living in the area. The planning policy context for this proposal was set out clearly in the section of the report with the subheading ‘Policies’. That part of the report addresses all the policies that were relevant to the determination of the application. As had been set out in previous reports, officers did not consider that there was a policy-based reason to refuse this proposal.

There were 22 objections to the latest scheme, one expression of support and two

neutral comments.

The Planning Officer stated that a letter of objection had been received from the Guinness Partnership on behalf of Cooper House residents, drawing particular attention to issues associated with the parking spaces for disabled people on Camelford Close, land they believe was not a public highway. The Council is a freeholder of the land on Camelford Close, providing a lease to the Guinness Trust but applicant would have a legal right to access the parking spaces. The Planning Officer noted that 31 objections from when the item was last before the Committee had been missed off this most recent report.

An objector stated that the development would have a profound impact on daylight and be overbearing on Cooper House. They felt there would be insufficient parking and loading, that would lead to further traffic congestion. They believed the application to be a far denser development than others in the area. They felt the development threatened residents’ quality of life.

A second objector noted that they had been consistent in stating that this development was inappropriate for the area. The proposed development would overlook children’s bedrooms. They felt the offer of a Community Hub from the developer to be insulting and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee, stating that this would be a high quality, sustainable development. They felt there was a pressing need for PBSA in Manchester and that this site was currently a blight on the local area. The proposed site was 500 metres from the University of Manchester and 200 metres from Manchester Metropolitan University. The proposed PBSA would offer a variety of accommodation, in-line with the offer of a typical PBSA and will provide disabled parking and a Community Hub. The proposal was in-line with other buildings in the area with the reduced scale and mass.

A ward Councillor addressed the Committee, stating that this was the time to finally refuse the application. They felt the proposal did nothing to address their concerns and had provided no evidence of the need for PBSA on this site. They felt the application would bring disruption to a settled residential area, failing to consider the health and wellbeing of residents. They felt that the trees proposed to be planted would not have sufficient light. The Councillor felt that the rooms offered were below the required standard.

A second ward Councillor addressed the Committee, stating that nothing had changed. They had objected on every occasion the application had been before the Committee. The application was in a residential area and students already living in the area had had a negative impact.

The Planning Officer noted that the applicant had amended the application on three occasions. The Planning Officer could find no policy-based reason to refuse the application based on the reason the Committee had been previously minded to refuse, on the basis that PBSA of this size would be contrary to maintaining a sustainable mixed residential neighbourhood and would lead to an imbalance of students living in the area.

A member stated that they thought a different reason for minded to refuse had been given at the previous meeting, relating to the size of the scheme. They felt the application did not fit with the Oxford Road Regeneration Scheme. They wanted to propose refusal based on the size of the scheme and policy H12.

The Director of Planning informed members that there was clear protocol relating to minded to refuse. When members are minded to refuse, Planning officers take that away to try to find a reason for refusal. Previously, the applicant had amended the scheme based on the reasons that members had been minded to refuse. At the previous meeting the reason for minded to refuse was that PBSA of this size would be contrary to maintaining a sustainable mixed residential neighbourhood and would lead to an imbalance of students living in the area, and not the height of the scheme. If members wanted to change the reason, then they would have to be minded to refuse again rather than being able to propose refusal.

A member then stated that they would second the proposal if amended to minded to refuse on the basis of Policy H12.

A member then stated their belief that it would be disingenuous to be minded to refuse again, feeling that a decision was necessary. They queried how the vote would work.

The Director of Planning and the City Solicitor’s representative informed the committee that if a motion is defeated, then another motion would need to be proposed for a decision. The same motion could not be moved twice.

Councillor Lovecy moved minded to refuse on the basis of Policy H12. Councillor Curley seconded the proposal. The proposal was defeated, with three members in favour, nine against and two abstentions.

Councillor S. Ali moved the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Chohan seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve subject to a legal agreement containing affordable rent obligations for up to 20% of all bed spaces being advertised as being below market rent level in each academic year.