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

This proposal was considered by the Planning and Highway Committee on 30 May 2024 when Members deferred consideration in order to undertake a site visit and for further information and clarification on how the accommodation would be commissioned and managed, and how it would relate to other similar uses in the ward.

 

A site visit took place on the morning of the meeting.

 

The accommodation would be occupied only on a referral basis in conjunction with the City Council’s Homeless Team and residents would need to meet eligibility criteria to live there. Residents would be risk assessed relevant to their needs. Anyone who is considered to pose a risk of committing anti-social behaviour in the local area would not be accepted.

 

The accommodation would be staffed on a 24 hour basis. Staff would be working and on duty overnight. Residents would not be allowed visits and management arrangements would prevent residents from congregating outside of the building either within the grounds or on the public highway. Staff members would disperse any residents who are congregating outside and failure to comply with this could result their agreement being terminated. The applicant would make their contact number available to surrounding residents and other users including the school, who can contact them directly and staff can immediately take appropriate action.

 

Residents would be encouraged to meet with their families in the family home or with friends at local day centres or other social/leisure facilities. It is recommended that the operational management, in condition 12, is modified in order to reflect these arrangements.

 

The City Council’s Homeless Team and Support Housing Team support the proposal and do not believe that it would result in an over concentration of this type of use in the ward. The existing uses are low key in nature, housing a limited number of residents, and were dispersed across the ward avoiding a concentration in one location. As a percentage of the total population of the ward, these uses represented a small proportion of the total number of residents and would meet the needs of the most vulnerable.

 

The applicant stated that the proposal would help the council avoid the use of costly bed and breakfast accommodation. The applicant had worked with the city council and the scheme has the support of the Housing Team. It would accommodate low risk people who needed help. There would be a 24 hour staff rota and no sleeping quarters. People with a criminal record would be assessed on their individual case and any anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated. Clients would be contracted to a behaviour policy as part of their terms and conditions and anyone not adhering could be forcibly removed. Visitors would not be allowed on-site and there would be full control over who was in the building. Residents would be expected to meet family and friends at their premises or out in other social settings. GMP support the scheme and the applicant had engaged with Local Ward Councillors, redesigning the scheme from high to low risk clients. They had engaged with the local primary schools and met with Headteachers at an engagement event. The Diocese of Salford had provided the building free of charge for this purpose. Funding is available for additional security measures, such as CCTV and this scheme would enable low risk homeless males to build their lives back up towards a self-sustaining lifestyle and would reduce homelessness in Manchester.

 

Councillor Flanagan stated that it was a sad day for Ward Councillors and residents who had had to object to this scheme. They look for a compromise to any application, rather than object, adding that he had worked with and met the applicant as they have been involved in other homeless accommodation projects. He is not against homelessness accommodation sites but Miles Platting and Newton Heath Ward has a higher than average amount. It is not NIMBY-ism but the higher than average amount was an indicator of there being too many already. A senior Officer had advised him that the Ward is full to capacity and could provide a copy of the email. The Officer felt the proposal should not be supported when it could remain as an end of life and dementia care centre. The site could be considered for other uses and he was shocked to hear that money was the driving force behind this application. He stated that there is talk of relocating Abbott Primary School as it may be in jeopardy and closed by confirming that he was keen to continue working with the applicant.

 

Councillor Grimshaw stated that he did not completely agree with how the meeting had gone between Local Ward Councillors and the applicant. He noted that St Patrick’s RC Primary School were part of the Diocese so would clearly support the application. There had been no letter of support from Abbott Primary School and there is a lack of infrastructure to provide daytime meeting places in the Ward, with the library not being able to open full-time. Families and children would also use these places and it was posed whether these low-risk clients would make residents feel unsafe in their own communal areas. It was likely that the clients would meet their friends on street corners and make the area feel less safe. He stated that with some clients potentially coming from prison made him feel that the bigger picture remained unseen and expressed his disappointment with the application.

 

The Planning Officer stated that all formal responses to the application were contained within the report, adding that there may have been other conversations but Officers can only respond to what comes back to them. He confirmed that the Director of Homelessness is supportive and noted that there was not any over-concentration of these facilities in this Ward.

 

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

 

Councillor Kilpatrick noted the 1.69% concentration of similar homelessness projects in the Miles Platting and Newton Heath Ward but asked what the city average was.

 

Councillor Curley noted the Planning Officer’s comments regarding comments sent to the Planning Team being all that could be recorded for the report and expressed that the applicant was a good organisation. He raised concern about vulnerable people and wished for them to be supported properly by their families and friends. There is a possible contradiction between there being a high need and the low risk nature of the potential tenants, adding that there were many who needed this kind of help due to mental health issues. He addressed Councillor Flanagan’s comment around the issue of money by stating that this was a basic requirement for any project but would be concerned if this aspect was prioritised over health and wellbeing. Placing the scheme close to schools may not be best for either the project or the schools.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the scheme, if approved, would make 1.69% of dwellings for homeless families in the Ward and that the city average was 0.95%. The management plan would be a condition.

 

The Chair added that the site visit was useful in determining where the entrance would be located in relation to that of Abbott Primary School and that extra screening could be added if approved by the Committee today.

 

The Director of Planning confirmed this, noting that the Planning Team would work with the applicant for a suitable solution for screening between the school and the homeless unit if approved today.

 

Councillor Kilpatrick questioned the multiple entrances to the proposed scheme, one of which was directly opposite the foundation year’s entrance, asking if there could be a condition placed on the application to restrict the use of these other entrances, where permissible for health and safety reasons.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the main entrance would be opposite the car park entrance and the other entrance was for staff use only, would be locked when not in use and there would be a condition to control this.

 

Councillor Davies concurred that the site visit had been useful, noting that the pedestrian gate entrance to the school would need to be open for emergencies but may be better if closed. She enquired on whether staff could prevent issues such as clients congregating outside of the building as an all-male presence would be intimidating. Further questions were raised on the issue of smoking and whether this was allowed in the individual residencies and also on control of drug use as this was another concern for passers-by and school children. If these behaviours were not considered anti-social but they could still be intimidating and threatening to others. Concern was raised around the potential for visitors to the clients being exploited in some cases.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the gateway would be locked 24/7 unless required for access or egress and referred the Committee to page 17, paragraph 4, regarding visits or congregating outside the unit or on the public highway, adding that this could lead to residents of the project having their residency terminated.

 

Councillor Hewitson questioned why this was not a scheme for Female clients, noting that that it had been refused for this purpose previously.

 

Councillor L Bell noted comments regarding clients meeting visitors at local day centres but considered that there was a lack of such provision in the Ward and had concerns about where the residents of the unit would congregate. He also raised concern around the amount of school children passing by the unit and asked what the overnight arrangements were for staff on-site, whether it     would be staffed by 5 persons over a 24 hour period and how clients being “low risk” was assessed.

 

Councillor Lovecy noted that there was a need to determine the detail within the operations management plan. She noted that there was a similar scheme within her Ward which did have some issues previously but was now running well so noted how schemes like this can be successful and would want this to work as well. Councillor Lovecy stated that her concern was for this project to have arrangements for zero problems and an effective team. She questioned what these males would be doing in the daytime as the Ward didn’t appear to offer much daytime provision. She noted that the Early Years centre also had an entrance on Nobby Stiles Drive. Councillor Lovecy requested for the Committee to have the assurances they needed to approve this application, noting specifically any contract with the Homelessness Service of the city council and issues of public concern. She supported the scheme in principle but had outstanding concerns.

 

The Planning Officer stated that the Committee could only deal with the application in front of them today, which was for 19 homeless low risk males. He referred to Councillor Bell’s and Lovecy’s comments, stating that the Homelessness Service were satisfied with arrangements for staff, managements and selective process of clients. Others support the scheme and all staffing and management operations.

 

The Director of Planning noted that there was a condition regarding how tenants would be assessed and that this had been worked over thoroughly with the Homelessness Service.

 

Councillor Davies expressed that she needed more information, adding that the Homelessness Service may be experts but would not address concerns of residents and were serving their clients. Councillor Davies asked for information on local day centres and leisure centres and on how tenants would be evicted if not complying with house rules, further enquiring about the legal process around this.

 

Councillor S Ali noted that his only concern was on the location of the proposal being next to schools, asking about the level of low risk and whether this may include drug users as he would consider them to be high risk.

 

The Director of Planning stated that any legal process around eviction is outside the remit of Planning, and any issues arising would be dealt with by a separate legal process.  The assessment of client’s risk and criteria was for the service to ascertain and promote, with assistance from city council colleagues.

 

Councillor Kilpatrick stated that it was disappointing to have asked for the concentration of similar schemes across the city on 21 June and be told today that it is higher than the city average and doesn’t include travellers. There was a need for accommodation for homeless males but he asked how this scheme would impact on the local amenity and whether the school could deal with its operations. Councillor Kilpatrick inferred that it was difficult to make a decision as, on balance, there was general support for this type of provision but he felt that the application was lacking information on the overall concentration across the city and impact on the school. He directly enquired on what the operational impact would be to the school.

 

Councillor Davies enquired about the security of clients and why information regarding the potential termination of contracts was in the report if it was not something for the Committee’s consideration. She noted the Condition 12 comment stating that the Operational Management Statement shall be submitted for approval and questioned how this was being applied, considering there was another step to follow.

 

The Director of Planning confirmed that the legal agreement was a separate process, not for the Committee to consider and that the tenancy details were not for the Committee to consider. There was an operational management plan, as per other Planning Committee applications with some level of detail and additional conversations will take place between the city council and the applicant, such as the issue of smoking on the site.

 

The Planning Officer addressed Councillor Kilpatrick’s concern, stating that there would be no impact to the school, noting that the entrances to both the unit and the school were not opposite each other, there would be no outside gatherings allowed and children would be escorted to and from school as they were primary age.

 

The Chair passed back to the Committee to make a determination.

 

Councillor Lovecy still had concerns about Condition 12 and enquired about further assurances on an operational management plan. She noted that the school had not objected to the scheme and stated that this may add some weight in favour of the application and moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

 

The Chair asked Councillor Lovecy if her motion was to include additional conditions around screening.

 

Councillor Lovecy confirmed this to the Chair.

 

Councillor Gartside seconded the motion, adding that the applicant was present and would be able to take away the Committee’s concerns and comments to address them with the Planning Team.

 

The Committee voted not to support the motion and the Director of Planning explained that the Committee would need to provide a reason to be resolved to a decision of Minded to Refuse.

 

Councillor Curley asked if the various concerns of the Committee could be consolidated into one reason by a member.

 

The Director of Planning stated that one reason was required from one member.

 

Councillor Curley motioned that the application be deferred due to a Minded to Refuse decision as the Committee resolved that they had concerns regarding – impact on community and school, the management of clients outside the premises, potential access issues to the premises and school, legal issues relating to the tenancy termination plans, provision of day care centres in the locality, concentration of similar projects in this Ward and that the scheme was considered the right application in the wrong location.

 

The Committee agreed that Councillor Curley’s reasons addressed their concerns.

 

The Director of Planning noted that some of the comments in Councillor Curley’s reasons were not relevant but noted that they would be taken away and the application would return for consideration.

 

Decision

 

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Refuse due to the high concentration of similar schemes in the Ward, proximity of the scheme to primary schools, assurances around the operational management plan, tenancy termination concerns and lack of provision of local day centres.

 

(Councillor Kamal arrived during this item and took no part in the discussion or voting on the application).