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 an outline planning application (with access only in detail) for the phased demolition of existing buildings and phased development of up to 3,300 Purpose Built Student Accommodation bedrooms (Sui Generis use class)

with associated facilities including waste storage, laundry and cycle storage; up to 4,500 sq m of floorspace to be used for ancillary purposes associated with the student residential use of the site within Use Class F1a, Class E(a), E(b), E(c), E(d), E(g), Sui Generis (drinking establishment and hot food takeaway); ancillary supporting staff accommodation (up to 55 bedrooms) (Sui Generis use class), and up to 1,200 sq m of ancillary residential dwellings (Use Class C3), plus associated car parking, hard and soft landscaping, open space, utilities, footpaths and roads.

The application related to the redevelopment of part of the University of Manchester

student halls of residence at its Fallowfield Campus within the Fallowfield ward. Planning permission had previously been granted for its demolition and redevelopment as part of a wider scheme to provide additional bedspaces at the Campus. The application sought to update the University’s proposals to modernise the campus and provide further additional capacity at the site to address the need within the City for further purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA).

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.

The Planning Officer had nothing to add to the report.

An objector noted that they had lived in the area for 24 years. They felt Fallowfield to be struggling with the number of people there. There were already issues with litter. The University of Manchester only guaranteed PBSA for students in their first year. The objector did not believe that this application would free up family homes and felt there was no evidence to support that it would. The felt the application was an overdevelopment of the site. They had concerns about carbon emissions and the effect of those on children, the elderly and the most vulnerable.

The agent, noted that this was an outline application with strict limits contained within that, such as having declared the maximum number of beds, the maximum height of the scheme and the areas that must be free from development and the points of access that were fixed in the application. The agent felt that the outline application allowed for Officers to make a full assessment of the scheme. The agent noted that it was desirable to increase the student population of Manchester but to do that, extra PBSA was required. Prices were to be purposely set at a competitive rate, typically 30% cheaper than what was available elsewhere. The agent noted that PBSA was necessary to move students out of residential homes and HMOs, as supported by the evidence. Fallowfield remained a popular location for students. The scheme had been designed to be zero carbon emissions in operation and achieve a net-gain of 20% in biodiversity, which was a university standard. The university had been involved in extensive engagement with the neighbourhood team in Fallowfield to put long-term support into the area.

A ward Councillor accepted that issues would be easier to manage whilst students were in PBSA. They accepted that the area was marketed for students to move into but did not believe the application would free up HMOs and family homes. The ward Councillor noted that a previous application in the area was refused on appeal due to that application bringing an extra 425 students to the area and the impact that would have. They noted the application being considered by members was for over 3,000 bedrooms. They felt that it was long-term residents who would be impacted most by the application.

A second ward Councillor addressed the Committee, stating their belief that this was an overdevelopment. They wanted residents to be considered and did not believe they had been as part of this. They felt the application had not considered whether the site was suitable for PBSA. The ward Councillor did not believe that PBSA would free up family homes and HMOs.

The Planning Officer noted that the report before members addressed the issues that had been raised. They stated that there were clear parameters to approve the scheme contained within the report. The Planning Officer was aware of the need to provide family homes in Fallowfield and stated that without PBSA, students would continue to take up those family homes. The university had agreed a programme of work with the neighbourhood team in Fallowfield for the short and long term.

A member queried if the Planning Officer had details on the number of students who had moved out of HMO’s. A member asked what percentage of the rooms in the application would be for second- and third-year students.

The Planning Officer stated that the council tax exemptions data from their housing colleagues provided the data regarding students moving into PBSA and away from HMO’s. They noted that approving the outline application did not constrain the Committee but set a limit on what can be proposed in subsequent applications, such as the number of bedrooms and height of the building.

A member queried what the drawback was for students not in their first year. Another member asked that the developer works closely with the neighbourhood teams to improve their offer to the community.

The Planning Officer noted that they could not control through the Planning process whether second- and third-year students live in the building. They had discussed the possibility of reserving places for those students with the university. The Planning Officer stated that discussions were already underway between the developer and neighbourhood teams.

Councillor Andrews moved the Officer’s recommendation to Approve.

Councillor Davies seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application.