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

The Committee considered a proposal to provide accommodation for 19 single homeless men with communal living areas, staffroom and parking in an office building. Referrals would be made by the Council for low risk residents with low support needs. The Homeless Directorate support the proposal. Representations from Councillor Grimshaw and Hitchen have been received. There have been 15 objections and 4 letters of support.

The applicant stated that the applicant had managed homeless centres in Hulme and Collyhurst. This development would provide 19 rooms for homeless men and would take away the use of private BnB rooms and save money. There had been a public presentation to provide information and allay fears or concerns. The centre was for men classed as low risk and low needs. It would be staff with 24 hour CCTV and clients would be correctly matched to the level of need at the centre. Anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated. The building was previously a care home so any mobility issues were already addressed. The plane was for the centre to assist homeless men on their pathway to an independent life and fining work. The drive was to ensure that anyone in Manchester can have a secure home.

Local Ward Councillor Grimshaw stated that the application lacked supporting information.  Local Councillors had met with Caritas and nothing was decided. The nearby school did not support the scheme. The report was poor in terms of presenting the objections clearly. Councillor Grimshaw shared his concerns, from being told the centre was for people being discharged from hospital to finding out that the scheme was offering a bed every night. Councillor Grimshaw felt that the Committee did not have enough information to make a decision and requested they conduct a site visit to understand the scheme and its proximity to a primary school.

Local Ward Councillor Hitchen was surprised to hear about how concerned the school was about this scheme. Councillor Hitchen had not been informed of the change of use for this building and the information from the Director of Homelessness Services had not been supportive. This was not simply a case of “not in my back yard” as there had been 550+ homeless people/families in this ward recorded in 2022.Last year there were 150 families and over 1000 in temporary accommodation. Information had been provided by officers that this site was ideal for 6 people and now this scheme proposed 3 times that amount. There were other recover centres for 59 males with addiction problems in Collyhurst already. The concern was for the use of this area as a stop-gap for individuals with complex issues and also for the safety of residents. It was not a case of not wanting to help but more that this area is already heavily addressing these kinds of issues already. Visitors to these males at the centre would not be allowed on site so this would force them onto the street. Councillor Hitchen stated that they had been told there would be no additional schemes of this sort in this area due to oversaturation and requested that the Committee conduct a site visit.

The Planning Officer stated that all comments on the proposal were included in the report and that there had been no response from the school to the scheme. Comments from the Homeless Directorate on page 247 showed support.

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

Councillor Hughes stated that, having read through all the information, a site visit was appropriate. He noted that the comments of support and objection were all condensed into a few lines. Councillor Hughes considered that this made it more difficult to be able to make a clear decision.

Councillor Davies stated that this was a scheme of much needed provision and, as such, she naturally supported it, so long as the location was suitable. Councillor Davies noted that there would be no overnight accommodation for staff and felt that this raised concerns around what would happen during a time of crisis. There was also a concern about comments in the report and the difference between these and the community feeling. More clarity was required and a site visit was appropriate due to the proximity to a nearby primary school.

Councillor Kilpatrick stated that this was the kind of application that was always welcomed and noted Policy H10 on page 248, which stated that the proposal would not result in a high concentration of similar uses in the area and would not place stress on existing infrastructure. However, Local Ward Councillors disagreed with this and therefore, Councillor Kilpatrick also supported a site visit.

The Director of Planning addressed the comment regarding drafting of comments in the reports, stating that they were normally shortened for brevity and there was nothing untoward in this practice and they had not been unreasonably shortened in this instance. It was then noted that the Committee would need to be clear about a reason for a site visit if this was their decision today and would have to be around establishing the context of the application in its environment.

Councillor Curley asked if all concerns could be address if a site visit was agreed, particularly the proximity to a primary school. The scheme would be run by a good provider, however each scheme should be determined on its own merits. If there were any gaps, it was requested that these be filled with the required information. Councillor Curley stated that he was in support of a site visit due to concerns over the proximity of the scheme to a primary school.

The Director of Planning requested clarity over the reasons for a site visit, stating that further clarity would be sought over any issues raised if the application was deferred today, adding that all information received by the Planning Team was within the pack.

Councillor Kilpatrick stated that there was concern over the concentration of other similar schemes in this area/ward and felt that this would be a reason for additional information.

Councillor Curley moved a proposal for the Committee to conduct a site visit. Councillor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to defer consideration of the application, in order to undertake a site visit on the grounds of requiring further information on other similar schemes in the area and to check the proximity of the proposed scheme to a primary school.