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 a City Council development which was to change the use of a former probation centre (Class E) to a homeless shelter for up to 20 homeless people (sui generis).

The conversion of a vacant probation centre to a homeless shelter would provide 20 bedrooms for single homeless people, incorporating communal living areas, staffroom, and parking.

Objections had been received from 92 local residents, together with 2 letters of

support.

The main concerns raised related to the proximity of the proposed use to a neighbouring children’s day nursery and safeguarding issues; anti-social/criminal behaviour perceived to be generated by prospective residents; the use of the open space opposite and interaction with children; the impact to nearby property values and the provision of satisfactory operational arrangements, to ensure that the development does not harm the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers.

The Planning Officer had nothing to add to the printed report.

A representative for the applicant attended and addressed the Committee, noting the application would provide temporary accommodation for homeless people within Manchester who require low to medium support. The site would be managed by a team leader, with ten staff on a 24/7 rota. There would be a minimum of three staff on site at all times. Residents would be in this accommodation for a maximum of six months, with most moving on quicker. The applicant had a proven track record of managing such establishments successfully. All residents would sign a licence agreement that if broken would mean them losing their place in the accommodation. The accommodation would have a no visitor policy. It was noted that there was a shortage of this type of accommodation in the South of Manchester. The engagement pre-application was wider than usual.

A Sharston ward Councillor addressed the Committee, noting the close proximity to their ward of the application but that they had not been consulted at the same time as Woodhouse Park ward councillors. They felt that Sharston residents needed assurances that the site would be properly managed, and their concerns could not be ignored. They requested that the Committee complete a site visit before determining the application. In particular, the ward Councillor wanted the Committee to look at the impact on parking, litter, anti-social behaviour, security, CCTV and other operational arrangements.

The Planning Officer noted that the consultation was in excess of the statutory requirements and that the local community were aware of the proposed development with over 90 comments received. A drop-in event had been held in Sharston to discuss resident concerns. It is necessary to consider the material planning impacts and whether these could be mitigated, and as part of the consideration a detailed management plan, detailed in the report, would form a condition of planning permission and the implementation of this plan would mitigate against any harm. The existing lawful planning use of the building was that of offices andt there isno control in relation to intensity of use or hours of operation. The premises could be used for a number of other uses without requiring an application for planning permission and this includes retail, restaurant or day nursery, again, without any control over intensity of use or hours of operation.  The Planning Officer stated that conditions within the application would address the concerns that had been raised.

A member queried if the Planning Officer could confirm which post codes the objections had been received from.

A member accepted that the consultation had been wider than required. They felt that the success of these types of accommodation relied on management and good staff upholding the management plan. The member supported the idea of a site visit.

The Planning Officer did not have a break down of figures relating to where objections had been received from but noted it was a mixture of Woodhouse Park and Sharston residents. They noted that the management plan was clearly detailed within the report and that the site would be managed by the Council’s homelessness team.

Councillor Curley moved a proposal for the Committee to complete a site visit.

Councillor Andrews seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the motion for a site visit.