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

The Committee considered the report for the erection of a 24-storey mixed use building incorporating 224 residential apartments (Use Class C3a), 87 apart-hotel studios (Use Class C1), amenity space, flexible commercial space (Use Class E), and cafe (Use Class E(b)), together with infrastructure, landscaping, and other associated works.

The public realm would be improved including street tree planting, raingardens and high quality hard landscaping. There had been 3 letters of support and 9 objections.

The Planning Officer did not add anything to the printed report.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and stated that they represented the company and referred to their track record across the city centre and Salford with projects in Hulme, Ordsall and Ancoats. The developer wished to contribute to the city centre and this was a landmark development. The site in its current state was unattractive and subject to crime and the fear of crime. The application was a quality design of red brick with a sawtooth roof, harking back to the industrial heritage of the city. This development would provide much needed hospitality and access, adding public realm space to make the area feel safer whilst minimising impacts and improving economic growth. This was a good use of a brownfield site and the agent requested that the Committee approve the application.

The Planning Officer stated that the Cornbrook Metrolink stop was in dire need of improvement and this scheme would address that as part of the development and make the area much safer.

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

Councillor L Bell stated that his only concern was the lack of affordable housing within the scheme and hoped for some offer or support in this regard.

Councillor Kilpatrick noted that the height of the development had played a part in the objections received and stated that he made attempts to check the Strategic Regeneration Framework and questioned whether the increased height of the proposal was in line with this framework, as suggested in one of the objections. Councillor Kilpatrick moved onto a query around the light impact assessment and noted that the footprint of the scheme was the same as the previous application for this site. He raised concern over the impact to the Vox building and questioned why the development was compared to a theoretical building within the report. If the previously planned development was recommended for approval based on light assessments, then other factors should also be considered for this development, such as viability now that it was proposing a bigger building on the site. He noted that there appeared to be a different assessment as the Committee were being asked to approve a bigger building but lose the Section 106 agreement.

The Planning Officer stated that where affordable housing was concerned, the policy allows for a viability assessment to be undertaken. This is tested independently and then assessed in-house for consistency. It has been accepted that the profitability is way below the allowance for affordable housing to be considered on this scheme. This via a benchmark land value which shows that affordable housing could not be sustainable for this proposal. However, it was noted that this could change and so a recommendation for a later stage assessment could be made when the development was 80% complete. The test would then be re-run and the possibility for the city council to arrange for a Section 106 contribution. With regards to the day/sunlight assessment, this was very technical and the Planning Officer stated that they had made best attempts to put this into plain language in the report. The BRE guidelines on day/sunlight are not subject to Planning Policy but could be used in court cases and is an accepted methodology of accepting readings. Regarding the mirror image of the development, it was practice for any application in the development stages to have a theoretical mirror image building also assessed for any high impact. There was agreement for a landmark building on this site as per a city centre situation. The day/sunlight assessment allowed for a higher build but this proposal was lesser than previously agreed. This information had been tested via appeal and court cases.

Councillor Lovecy enquired about the landscaping, asking if it was possible to add a condition to add a play area for children.

Councillor Curley addressed the issue around viability, noting that some city centre projects saw the developers unable to keep to promises, leading to project being kept on hold. Addressing the issue of the Section 106 agreements, he stated that Manchester would never get enough affordable housing, but stated that it always helps but felt that it was notable that the scheme would offer benefits to the broader area in tidying up a grim area of high use due to the Metrolink station. Councillor Curley expressed that the scheme should be welcomed for this improvement.

The Planning Officer referred to Councillor Lovecy’s request, stating that it could be difficult to provide but the idea of a play area/apparatus would be investigated. He agreed with Councillor Curley’s comments, stating that the application had been tested line by line and every value considered by three different services.

Councillor S Ali moved the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve.

Councillor Curley seconded the motion.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve for the application, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a late stage review of the viability to determine if there is any uplift in conditions to warrant a contribution towards affordable housing.