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

The Committee considered the report that reminded Members that this application was initiallyconsidered by the Planning and Highway Committee on 30 May 2024, where it was  deferred  in order to undertake a site visit and to allow further information and clarification to be provided on how the accommodation would be  managed, and about  other similar uses in the ward. The site visit took place on the morning of 28 June and was later considered by the Committee. At the May Committee Members were minded to refuse the item, with a decision being deferred to allow officers to address the concerns raised as follows:

•           How resident’s contracts would be terminated in the event of a breach of their agreement, and if/how the operator could move residents on.

•           The signposting and provision of access to daycentres for residents to meet friends and families, and the general management of and support given to residents outside of the facility.

•           The impact on the neighbouring school’s accesses, and the impact on the local community and operation of the school.

•           The overconcentration of uses of this nature in Miles Platting and Newton Heath and their subsequent wider effect on the ward.

In reporting back to Committee, officers advised that these concerns could not form the basis of defendable planning reasons to refuse the application, on the basis that:

The termination of a resident’s license and the protocol for moving residents on would be addressed through the management and operation of the facility. The Management Plan could be controlled via a planning condition (See condition 12). It has been confirmed that residents would occupy on a license agreement, which could be terminated without notice if they breach the terms of the agreement. No notice is required and there are no legal rights of appeal. Causing anti-social behaviour, congregating outside the site or on local streets would be in breach of the license agreement and could lead to immediate eviction. Effective management of residents outside of the facility would be achieved through the deterrent of the termination of their license agreement.

Residents would be encouraged and signposted to attend other sites in the local area to meet friends and family. These measures would be included in the Management Plan. The site is on the boundary of Piccadilly ward and the facilities that residents would be signposted to are in neighbouring areas. These include day centres, educational, volunteering and training services and other leisure facilities. Examples include the Booth Centre, Barnabus, Lifeshare and Caritas facilities. Other examples include Mustard Tree and Back on Track. Other leisure facilities include Central Library, Aquatics Centre, The art gallery and MOSI.

All residents would be registered at the Urban Village Medical Practice under their homeless person contract ensuring services would not be taken away from local people. The practice is fully supportive of this scheme.

Residents would access the facility through the main entrance at the southern end of the site. The vehicular access to the car park and the pedestrian gate at the northern end of the site would be used only by staff, with the latter being locked and used in the event of an emergency. These measures would be secured by condition 12. The only entrance for residents would be as far away as possible from the school’s access. 

Policy H10 states that housing for people with additional support needs will not be supported in areas where there is a high concentration of similar uses. However, there is no threshold in the policy and demonstrable evidence to support impact due to an alleged over concentration is required. The ward has only a marginally higher number of such uses than other neighbouring areas, and for the reasons set out above there is no basis to refuse permission as the management plan, license agreement, controlled access points and the spread of facilities for residents in a wider area would not cause adverse impact or cause disproportionate stress on local infrastructure and facilities.

The applicant stated the proposed scheme would accommodate 19 single males who had been assessed as low risk and with low need. She reiterated the difference between a license to occupy as opposed to a tenancy agreement, and the associated license conditions relating to congregating and antisocial behaviour. She said occupants would be permitted to smoke in their bedrooms and the communal courtyard. She said that the management and operation plans had been fully endorsed by the Council’s Homelessness Service. She further reiterated the use of the main entrance as the primary access route and that discussions had been undertaken with Abbott Primary School, including options for additional screening between the site and the school. She added that no formal letter of objection had been submitted by the school to the proposed development. She stated that dialogue with both the school and local residents would continue. She said that training and educational sessions would be delivered to the occupants on site, in addition to occupants being signposted to relevant support services outside of the ward, but within a mile walking distance. She said that Urban Village Medical Practice were fully supportive of the scheme. She concluded that by stating that the applicant had a proven record of delivering quality, well managed support services.

Councillor Flanagan stated that the area in which the scheme was proposed already had proliferation of services and schemes designed to support vulnerable residents, including drug and alcohol services; a bail hostel (Approved Premises); homelessness services; in addition to the high levels of temporary accommodation. He commented that the area experienced high levels of deprivation and there was a lack of shops in the vicinity that had resulted in a food desert He reiterated that he was not anti-homeless services and that he had met and spoke with the applicant to discuss concerns previously discussed at Committee. He stated that an absolute redline would be the site being used for the ‘A Bed Every Night’ scheme, for the reasons that those individuals referred could not be adequately risk assessed. He proposed that the Committee, if minded to approve should consider including a condition that excluded the site from being used as part of the ‘A Bed Every Night’ scheme or reject the application.

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

Councillor Davies stated that the Council was committed to supporting rough sleeping and those experiencing homelessness, however appropriate consideration needed to be given to where services were located and the impact these could have on the local community. She noted that the ‘A Bed Every Night’ scheme had been very important in the support offered to rough sleepers and questioned if the Operational Management Statement could be modified to include a condition to exclude the site from accepting referrals from the ‘A Bed Every Night’ scheme.

Councillor Kilpatrick referred to the minutes of the previous meeting where he had asked for a condition regarding restrictions on the use of other entrances and noting the discussions at this meeting regarding the use of the main entrance. He requested that a condition be agreed in relation to this. He further questioned what controls the operator could reasonably have once an occupant had left the premises.

Councillor S. Ali asked how an individual would be assessed as being low risk before being accommodated at this site.

The Planning Officer stated that a condition could be included that addressed the discussion regarding the use of the main entrance and the installation of appropriate screening with the school.

The Legal Officer said that the test for any condition  would be if it was enforceable and therefore this would have an impact on a specific condition regarding ‘A bed for Every Night’.

The Director of Planning stated that  the proposed operational and management plans  were robust and this set out how the premises would be occupied. In response to a comment made regarding the funding of the scheme, she said that this was not a material planning consideration. With reference to the ‘A Bed Every Night’ scheme she said that it would be very difficult to categorically rule out excluding this site from ever being used and said that if the Committee were minded, she could discuss this with the applicant to agree a suitable condition in consultation with the Chair about reinforcing the content of the Management Plan. 

Councillor S. Ali, noting the discussion and views of the Committee moved the recommendation to approve the application, subject to a conditions being agreed by the Director of Planning and the applicant, in consultation with the Chair, to be included in the management plan in regard to the relationship of the site and the ‘A Bed Every Night’ scheme; the use of the main entrance by occupants and the establishment of additional screening between the site and school.

Councillor Gartside seconded this motion.

Decision

The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to the inclusion of conditions that were to be agreed by the Director of Planning and the applicant, in consultation with the Chair in regard, to be included in the management plan in regard to the relationship of the site and the ‘A Bed Every Night’ scheme; the use of the main entrance by occupants and the establishment of additional screening between the site and school.