The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report for the erection of 15-storeys building to provide purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA - Sui Generis)) along with site preparation works, works over the public highway and other associated works.

The Committee deferred consideration of this proposal on 14 March 2024 to allow them to visit the site.

An objector stated that concerns had been raised by local businesses, with DC Motors attending to object in March 2024. The objector (from Paintpots Nursery) spoke on behalf the lease holder group for Bracken House where there were 6 floors of studio flats. She noted that the Committee observed the site from the playground area but did not go in Bracken House and may not have checked the view from DC Motors. DC Motors will lose their street frontage and the outdoor play area at the Nursery will only be 3 metres away from the development and have a detrimental effect on it. There was also the issue of the distance to the single aspect homes in Bracken House. This has been underassessed and half of all residents at these apartments with just one window will only have a wall to look at. By Manchester City Council standards, this is not good enough. Bracken House was converted into apartments prior to the “better space standards” scheme but it is residential and the report lacks a balanced view on this subject. Childcare and childcare staff sufficiency should be considered. This is another error in the report. The objector had experience in this area and hoped that the Committee could refuse this application on safety and ecological grounds as well as the safety of the nursery, wellbeing of local residents and economic effect on local businesses.

The applicant stated that 20% of the units would be affordable and there is a clear need for PBSA in Manchester. The scheme would release homes for family use. The applicant assured that there would be ongoing access to Paintpots Nursery and DC Motors with clear signage to the businesses and ramped access for pram users etc. The health of children and staff at the nursery has been properly assessed and no demolition is required , and therefore, no dust. This was not a complicated build and all noise aspects were controlled by a management plan, as reviewed by environmental officers. The gap between the building and nursery would be 6 metres, the same as it is on the opposite side of the development. Student “move-in” and “move-out” slots would be timed so as not to affect the nursery or other businesses. The site had been designed to fit in with the surroundings and the developers had offered Paintpots the use of some land as a playground space. The development responds to the demands for PBSA whilst sustaining local businesses and can be built safely.

The Planning Officer stated that this was a large report and all issues were covered within it, notably sun/daylight effects. Bracken House would experience a significant impact from the development. Although, the previous development of Bracken House had been undertaken by way of permitted development and this had an impact on this development site. Many of the factors involved in the current proposal were not unusual in a city centre context. Early Years colleagues had identified there may be some deficit of places and this may spread places around the wider area but they were not opposed to the proposal.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions or make comments on the application.

Councillor Kilpatrick stated that he was new to the Committee so missed the prior meeting in March. He expressed that it was important to note the impact of the development on the Early Years setting, stating that the loss of a care provider would be a loss to the area. Councillor Kilpatrick enquired on whether there was any mitigation to allow the operation of the nursery without any impact to it, if officers could be sure about this and additionally requested if there was any condition that could be added.

Councillor Davies had three concerns:

• The overhang of the building – would this come up to the edge of the playground and was it over the public area
• Access to DC Motors – would access be fully maintained and a telephone number be provided to the construction team. Would this business survive the creation and running of this development
• The role of Planning/Guidance – for an application that potentially poses a threat to local businesses and the potential damage done if children had to seek nursery places elsewhere. Now the city council was working more to European principles of having nurseries close to workplaces it was notably important to people

Councillor Davies noted that both businesses were unusual in a city centre setting but that there should be a drive to preserve this, rather than lose it.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be access to the nursery. A condition would require the applicant to explore the installation of a temporary access ramp but this could not be guaranteed. The overhang would be located on the opposite side of the building on York Street. Regarding DC Motors, there would be a contact number provided on hoardings around the site. The Planning Officer could not make any guarantees regarding existing businesses but mitigation is proposed. This is a development site and the applicant had addressed concerns as practically as possible.

Councillor Davies asked about whether York Street would be kept open.

Councillor L Bell stated that the viability of the nursery in a city centre setting was important. He asked if there were any specific vulnerabilities to this kind of business and to its future, additionally enquiring on whether there were conditions or policies to cover this.

The Planning Officer stated that the construction compound may yet be on a nearby site and the applicant had confirmed that they would not seek to close York Street or Charles Street and would be seeking a site nearby. Councillor L Bell’s comments had been addressed in the report and considered by Manchester City Council officers. Nurseries were identified as vulnerable from the outset and there were specific measures for dust and noise. There would be a siren alarm if dust levels exceeded the baseline position, and all work would cease at that time. The use of screens was good practice and this was all within the planning conditions. Furthermore, there would be no work undertaken between 12noon and 14:30 so as to create no disturbance to the nursery.

Councillor S Ali moved the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Riasat seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve for the application,subject to a S106 to secure affordable student housing and commercial waste disposal.