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 regarding:

 

137399/FO/2023 - the erection of a 6 to 9 storey building for Sci-Tech use (Use Class E (g)(ii)) and 265sqm of a cafe/bar (Use Class E (b)), and a 9 to 23 storey building for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) (Use Sui Generis), comprising 737 bedrooms and 293sqm of community use (Use Class F2 (b)) and 80sqm of commercial floorspace (Use Class E), alongside new public realm, access, parking, and associated works following demolition of existing buildings.

 

Consideration of this application was deferred by the Planning and Highways

Committee on 14 December 2023 to enable a site visit to take place.

 

The Government published, an updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 19 December 2023. The assessment of the issues and matters arising from the application set out in the report remained valid as a result of the publication of the updated NPPF and the recommendation set out at the end of the report remained unchanged as a result.

 

114 objections (form 78 households) had been received. Councillors Muse and

Abdullatif object.

 

And:

 

137401/FO/2023 - Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of three 12/14/29 storey buildings to be used for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (Use Sui Generis), comprising 983 bedrooms in total and 506sqm of ground floor ancillary uses (café/commercial and convenience store - Use Classes E (a)/(b)/(c)), three buildings comprising 5/7/9 storeys for Science and Innovation uses (Use Class E (g)(i) & (ii)) and 834sqm ground floor community uses (retail/ cafés and

medical facility (Use Classes E (a)/(b) and (e)), and the provision of new public realm, two new public squares, new access and parking, and associated works.

 

Consideration of this application was deferred by the Planning and Highways

Committee on 14 December 2023 to enable a site visit to take place.

 

The Government published, an updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 19 December 2023.  The assessment of the issues and matters arising from the application  set out in the report remained valid as a result of the publication of the updated NPPF and the recommendation set out at the end of the report remained unchanged as a result.

 

Manchester Metropolitan University supported the proposal.

 

113 (from 76 households) objections were received during the first round of

notification, 97 (from 77 households) had been received. Councillors Muse and

Abdullatif object.

 

Officers noted that a letter of support had been received from the Growth Company that felt the application presented an opportunity for an exciting platform which would benefit the area for many years. Committee members had been on a site visit on the day of the meeting which focused on the tallest element of the application, at 29-storeys near Grosvenor Street, and its impact on nearby accommodation on Hamsworth Close. On the visit, members stopped opposite Elizabeth Yarwood to see another taller element on Upper Brook Street with the lower element closer to Kincardine Court. Members noted the proximity to homes on the opposite side to Kincardine Court. The visit stopped at Gartside gardens, noting the proximity of buildings to road frontages and therefore the community. Members asked questions during the visit that were answered by Officers.

 

The Planning Officer noted that the Council’s main priority was to deliver commercial space, and the application offered 650,000 square feet. Life sciences are one of the key growth sectors and the opportunity to commercialise that was only available in a small area, mainly around the University. To deliver that space, the application needed to provide an enabling use, which for this was PBSA, which was desperately needed in Manchester. The size of the scheme had reduced considerably. Originally the application was for a 42-storey building but was now 29 storey following work by officers. The application had been independently tested and that was satisfied the application was not excessive and was the amount required to deliver the commercial floor space.

 

Two objectors addressed the Committee. The first objector raised concerns that the development would be towering, removing day light for nearby residential property. The objectors felt this was a residential area for families and that they had been told the area would be a thriving community, not a Life Science campus. It was felt that students would not move out of HMO’s as PBSA was too expensive.

 

The second objector had similar concerns regarding the size of the application and the negative impact on residents. They felt the application would overshadow the nearby park and residential properties. They had concerns regarding a possible increase in pollution. The resident felt there was not enough sunlight in the area, and this would remove it even further. The resident felt Councillors had a lead role in looking after residential communities and requested that the application was refused.

 

Two applicants addressed the Committee for each application. The first stated that the applicant was investing £730 million into the area having consulted extensively and listened to the Community. The scheme had been amended to the minimum required to deliver the Life Sciences space. Nearby car parks have low occupancy levels that can be used if necessary. They noted that the local community had requested certain amenities, such as a GP surgery, which was included in the application.

 

The second agent noted that the applications would deliver PBSA and a leading Life Science building. Whilst this was the only suitable location, this was also the correct location. The applicant wanted to play an active role in the community. The scheme was to provide 500 Life Science jobs once completed, with 800 during the delivery of the project.

 

A ward Councillor addressed the Committee stating that this was an area of family homes and a tight knit community. They felt the application did not match that. The Councillor felt that the area did not need the amount of students proposed in the application. They did not believe the application would enhance any part of resident’s lives.  They felt the application would increase traffic and commuters in an already busy area. The application would overshadow homes, as well as green spaces.

 

A second ward Councillor addressed the Committee, hoping that the site visit had provided members with a clearer idea of their objections. They noted that it had been the 10 years anniversary of the Brunswick redevelopment, and that this application would have a detrimental impact on that redevelopment. They had raised consistent objections, noting a lack of parking for 5,000 people, the height of the building, and loss of light and overshadowing. They felt that there was already PBSA around, with more already approved so questioned the need for this scheme. They raised issues relating to the viability of this scheme. The ward Councillor felt the development was not suitable for the area.

 

The Planning Officer stated that 2 comprehensive reports addressed the issues raised. It had never been suggested that there would not be a substantial impact on the area. All impacts had to be properly tested, with all impacts set out in the reports. The application had been fully considered and that formed the basis of Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Planning Officer noted there had been comments regarding PBSA and what it achieves, with suggestions that it did not lead to students moving out of mainstream accommodation and HMO’s. They noted that in South Manchester, Council tax exemptions had dropped by 31%, meaning 670 homes had been taken out of student use.  In the City Centre, council tax exemptions had flatlined but the number of students living in the centre had increased by 4,000, highlighting that most of those students were living in PBSA. In Ardwick, in the previous 10 years there had been 2,000 more students living in the area but only 200 PBSA spaces built so students were living in mainstream accommodation or HMO’s. Without PBSA, those numbers would continue to rise.

 

In terms of Public Realm, there were 3 significant areas proposed as part of scheme, with 3 generous routes linking Brunswick and Upper Brook Street through the site that were landscaped with seating throughout.

 

The Planning Officer stated that there was no parking with scheme, but it is Council policy to reduce car journeys and increase public transport use. To provide parking as part of the scheme would not encourage that. They did also note that there were 3 car parks within a 10-minute walk of site that operated well below occupancy levels.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the impact of overshadowing was set out in both reports and had not been ignored. They were not suggesting that there would be no impact, but assessments had shown that the impact would not be significant.

 

Following persistent interruption from the public gallery, at this stage the Chair requested that the meeting being adjourned whilst the public gallery was cleared. The Committee restarted in the Antechamber.

 

The Planning Officer continued that in terms of viability, this was a large and complex scheme, that in total was over 2 hectares. As the proposal was not just Life Sciences, it had to be tested how much of enabling development was necessary to deliver the scheme. An Independent Party had assessed the proposal and agreed that the level of PBSA was required to deliver the 650,000 square feet of commercial space.

 

In terms of rights of light, the Planning Officer stated that was a private matter and could not be assessed in the Planning process. During that process, the impact on day light, sun light and overshadowing are all assessed and that was set out in the report.

 

The Chair moved on to taking questions from members, grouping questions together. A member questioned if the scheme could not be built or maintained without the subsidy of the PBSA, and if so, why that was the case. A member also queried if there was any provision for highway adaptations within the applications due to the increased population they would bring. A member then questioned how the developer would have an active role in the community, as had been suggested. They did not see how residents wants were being met by the applications.

 

The Planning Officer noted that the viability assessment had shown the requirement for a subsidy, but that subsidy was from the developer and not students. In terms of Upper Brook Street, thousands of students cross over there every day to get to the University as a third of Ardwick population are already students. One of the public crossings was to be enhanced as part of the application but if there were safety issues, the highways authority would already have been aware. The Planning Officer felt it important to remember that students were also residents and part of the communities that they live in. The proposal included retail units to benefit the Community, with the developer having attempted to get a Lidl supermarket but Lidl were not interested at the time. There was to be a community centre, and medical centre along with 3 major pieces of public realm with 3 wide, landscaped routes.

 

A member queried to what extent a different model was feasible where a subsidy would not be needed. A member questioned how it would be made sure that the local retail would be for local residents rather than takeaway outlets aimed at students.

 

Councillor S. Ali moved the Officer’s recommendation for both applications.

 

The Planning Officer was invited to respond to the member queries prior to the moving of Officer recommendations. The Planning Officer reminded the Committee that they had to make decisions on planning policies. This site was seen as complex, with the application across 2 hectares which was larger than usual applications. The only viable way to deliver the proposal was using enabling development of PBSA of this scale. The data showed where students want to live, which was close to the Universities. The evidence showed that when PBSA is available, students move out of family homes and HMOs into the PBSA. The Planning Officer accepted that students were a transient population, but they wanted to free up homes to be occupied by permanent residents. The developer had engaged with the community to establish what types of retail units they wanted in the space created by the application. Whilst it could not be confirmed the type of retail that would be there, the Planning Officer felt that the developer wanted retail to serve the residents.

 

A member continued to query why the scheme was not profitable and did not understand the need for a subsidy. A member then questioned how deliveries to the PBSA would be managed. A member also noted that a recent report stated that students from Manchester were travelling to other cities for university.

 

The Director of Planning noted that students were staying outside Manchester due to not being able to get any accommodation. They reminded the Committee that they had to form a decision based on current planning policy.

 

The Planning Officer repeated that in relation to the need for a subsidy, that was what the viability assessment had shown. Strategies were also proposed within the report for dealing with moving in and out, and managing deliveries, with conditions proposed to support that.

 

As Councillor S. Ali had moved the Officer’s recommendation for both applications earlier, at this point, Councillor Andrews seconded the proposal.

 

Decision

 

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve both applications subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement to secure the provision of affordable rented accommodation, a mechanism to secure the delivery of the employment building, that private waste collections would take place for the perpetuity of the development and secure the project architect.