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 3 and 6 storey buildings to form 81 residential apartments (Use Class C3a) and erection of 28, two storey dwellinghouses (Use Class C3a), including green spaces, landscaping, boundary treatment, access arrangements, parking and other associated works.

The proposal would create 109 new homes, all would be affordable (either social rent or affordable rent), within two apartment buildings of 3 and 6 storey and two storey dwellinghouses. There would be public realm, parking and an off-site contribution of £110,000 for environmental improvements, place making and linkages within Newton Heath District Centre. Social Value would also be captured through a local labour agreement. The applicant was committed to ensure that local residents benefit from the development through access to employment.

Part of the site benefited from an extant planning permission for residential purposes. The remaining part of the site, the former Rosedale site, had previously been granted planning permission for a building which was significantly larger (at 10 storeys) than this proposal. This permission had expired.

This proposal presented a significant opportunity to transform a highly prominent vacant site along a main road route in the City together with having a positive impact on the ongoing transformation of Newton Heath district centre.

This development, together with an adjacent scheme being delivered by the applicant, would deliver 146 new affordable homes across the two developments.

Cllr Hitchen and Cllr Flanagan both object to the proposal.

The Director of Planning noted that many schemes are subject to funding or need to seek funding to be realised. They felt this was a much-needed scheme, providing 100% affordable housing, but that a determination was required to enable the applicant to seek funding required.

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

The applicant’s agent attended and addressed the Committee, noting that the application was for 100% affordable housing on an unused Brownfield site. The application would bring 109 new homes, a mix of affordable and social rented housing. Three of those homes would be fully accessible for wheelchair users and all other homes would be adaptable. More than half of the proposed homes were 2 or more bedrooms, intended for families. The remaining 1-bedroom homes would be targeted at smaller families or those who can downsize, enabling larger family homes within One Manchester’s portfolio to be freed up. The applicant was committed to entering into a local labour agreement, ensuring construction jobs were made available to Manchester residents. The applicant had agreed to a financial agreement via a Section 106 agreement for environmental improvements, place making and linkages within Newton Heath District Centre. New green infrastructure was also to be provided across the site.

A local ward Councillor addressed the Committee, noting that they did not object to the applications intention to provide affordable and social rented accommodation. Their objection related to the Section 106 agreement and how the £110,000 would be spent. They requested that the financial settlement be spent on the public realm around the nearby library, parking and the disamenity the development would cause.

The Planning Officer noted that the legal agreement states that the financial agreement was for a contribution to improve public spaces and facilities and create a well-designed environment, all of which related to the issues raised by the local ward Councillor.

The Chair requested assurances that local ward Councillors would be involved in discussions relating to the Section 106 agreement.

The Director of Planning noted that the wording in the agreement was loose, and that local ward Councillors could be involved in those discussions.

A member questioned how many of the 109 homes would be social housing.

A member noted that the report states 81 homes would be social housing and sought an assurance that would not be able to change after approval.

A member then requested that the wording of the Section 106 agreement be tweaked to provide assurances that local ward Councillors are involved in discussions.

The Director of Planning stated that it could not be added to the wording on a Section 106 agreement relating to local ward Councillors involvement, but the wording was flexible enough for allowing those discussions to take place around what would be delivered. They assured members that local ward Councillors would be consulted and that the Planning team would guide what was legitimate.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be 81 social rented accommodation, and that was controlled by condition 41 in the report.

Councillor Andrews moved the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Curley seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement to secure a financial contribution towards environmental improvements.