The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is attached.

There will be a site visit for members of the Committee with the arrangements as follows:-

Meet at the entrance of the Town Hall, Lloyd Street at 9.30am

Arrive at the site at 9.50am

Leave site at approximately 10.10am.

The Committee undertook a site visit in the morning before the meeting started.

The site is in the Ancoats Conservation Area and the Ancoats and New Islington Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF). The delivery of new homes is a key objective in the regeneration of Ancoats to support its vitality and support economic and population growth. The site is within the City Centre and Regional Centre for planning and regeneration purposes.

Councillor Taylor, a local ward member had made a late representation in support of the development.  Officers advised that she had said:-

“The number of small and medium sized businesses in Manchester is growing at an incredible rate and space like this is in demand and welcomes Ancoats and New Islington becoming a hub for these types of businesses.” 

Officers also confirmed that she was supportive of the provision of family accommodation at this location, given the area had much to offer families. 

The applicant was present and spoke to the Committee in support of the proposals.  He said that they have a similar development, Jactin House, which has co-working space and serviced offices which start from 14 sqm to 279 sqm. It offers affordable and all-inclusive spaces to SMEs who wish to start and grow their business in Ancoats in a modern, well designed and professionally operated setting. 

Occupiers would be able to choose from day passes, a monthly arrangement comprising either a floating or fixed desk, or a private office. There would be bookable meeting rooms. Space can be increased/decreased on a monthly basis. Regular networking events and workshops encourage tenants to collaborate.

This development would operate in a similar way and provide a mixed use scheme that would support the economic growth of Ancoats and deliver a key aspiration of the NDF.   

He also explained that they had held property interests in the Ancoats area since the 1990’s, and had several mixed use schemes in the area, which they had retained for management and maintenance purposes, delivered by a dedicated team based in Ancoats.  He also explained that he believed that if they produced an excellent product, customers would be retained.  He added that they take a proactive solution based approach to developments, rather than “churning out” developments that were all the same.  

The applicant said that he has a long history of living and working in Ancoats, and is committed to providing high quality developments that he himself would be proud to live in. He explained that they had consulted with local residents and businesses, and that as a result the scheme had been reduced in height and scale.   In addition, the scheme would provide family style accommodation, not just 3 bedroom accommodation, but specifically designed with family living in mind.

He also said that the strong setback at the top of the building would allow for outside family space on the roof terrace, to complement existing residential amenity.  The development of the site would also create improvements to the street scene.

The Committee asked for clarification as to how the scale of the development would relate to the surrounding area, given the concerns raised by Historic England about the impact on the conservation area.  Officers told the Committee that the remit of Historic England was very narrow, and they did not consider the broader range of issues that were the responsibility of the Committee to determine.  Officers said that the site had always been earmarked for a taller building, and that the character of Ancoats had always been one of mixed use and mixed height buildings.  Officers also said that the development would bring a currently derelict site back into productive use. 

The Committee also expressed disappointment that the scheme would not provide any affordable housing, and asked whether there was a possibility that the 15 year review clause would provide some income or a contribution to affordable housing in the future.  They also queried why there was a discrepancy between the independent viability report and the Council’s testing of viability.  Officers advised that there were 2 triggers to the review process, the first being that if the development did not commence within 2 years, there would be a review at that stage to determine whether market conditions had changed to allow for some affordable provision.  The other trigger mechanism was because this proposal is for build to rent properties, if at some point the developer decides to put any properties up for market sale, within a 15 year period, this would also mean that the profitability of the scheme would be reassessed to determine whether there was any scope for a contribution to affordability.  Officers also confirmed that this was embedded in the S106 agreement, so although the precise details are not in the report, they are fully covered in the S106 agreement that has been reached. 

With regard to the discrepancy in the profitability assessment, this is assessed independently, so no explanation for the discrepancy could be offered.

Officers also confirmed that as the proposals related to back-to-pavement development, there would be some street tree planting, but that this would be dependent on what was found once exploratory trenches where laid. Officers confirmed that the developer was committed to maximise the level of street tree planting.

The Committee also asked for clarification as to whether any conditions could address the issue of short term lets, and officers confirmed that this was contained in the development plan, as it was to the benefit of the developer to have longer term stable lets rather than short term lets. 

Decision

MINDED TO APPROVE subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement which retains the development as a PRS scheme for a covenant period together with a review mechanism at a future date.