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

The application was for the erection of part 17 (plus mezzanine level), part 6 storey building and the conversion with single-storey rooftop extension of the existing building at 1 & 3 Back Turner Street (comprising 13 x 1-bedroom, 1 person apartments, 9 x 1-bedroom, 2 person apartments, 24 x 2-bedroom, 3 person apartments, 13 x 2-bedroom, 4 person apartments, 6 x 3-bedroom, 6 person apartments (65 total)) above ground floor commercial floorspace (Class A1 (Shop), A2 (Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Café and Restaurant), A4 (Drinking Establishment) B1 (Office) and D2 (gym and cinema) use, with associated landscaping and other works following demolition of existing buildings at 30 & 32 Shudehill and 1 & 3 Nicolas Croft.

At present the site comprised one storey shops, some of which were vacant; 1-3 Back Turner Street, a five-storey warehouse in a poor and dilapidated state of repair. 5 Back Turner Street had been demolished in 2018 owing to its dangerous condition and around a third of the site was cleared and untreated land. The site therefore had a poor appearance overall. The site was in the Smithfield Conservation Area and adjacent to the Shudehill Conservation Area. The nearby grade ll listed buildings included: 75-77 High Street, the Hare and Hounds (29 Shudehill), CIS Building (Miller Street), 9-19 Thomas Street and 79 High Street (being the remains of a former fish market), 10-20 Thomas Street and 1-33 Thomas Street.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing was considered, as was further representations submitted to and reported to the meeting. The further matters drawn to the attention of the committee were a letter of support and three more letters of objection. The contents of those letters were summarised for the Committee. It was also proposed that Condition 25 (Residential Management Strategy) be amended to include details of how impacts on external appearance from blinds, curtains and any other privacy screening to windows would be managed.

A local resident of the Market Buildings spoke in opposition to the application. He said that a group of local residents were strongly opposed to the proposal on the grounds of (a) the design and height of the high building, its proportion to adjacent buildings and the poor fit with the architectural heritage of the area, stating that a 17-storey glass tower did not respect the heritage of the area; (b) the impact the development would have on the residents of neighbouring buildings and the harm to the amenity of the open-space square within the former market buildings; and (c) the poor way that the local people had been engaged with and consulted during the drawing up of the plans, stating that the Statement of Community Involvement did not reflect the views or feelings of local residents.

The meeting was addressed by Councillor Douglas, a Piccadilly Ward Councillor. She was concerned that the development, in particular the 17 storey glass building, would have a detrimental impact on the Shudehill and Smithfield Conservation Areas and would not fit with the historical characteristics of the area. She felt that this was not the right building for this site.

Another Piccadilly Ward councillor, Councillor Wheeler, also spoke. He said that many local residents had been in contact with him to express their objections, and that the Committee should therefore be aware of the strength of local opposition to these plans. He also questioned the reported financial viability of the scheme and why it was being asserted that the high costs of retaining and redeveloping the dilapidated 1-3 Back Turner Street building prevented the developer from also making a contribution to affordable housing. He also referred to the cost of purchasing an apartment within the completed development, feeling that the accommodation was therefore not of the sort being sought by the majority of Manchester’s residents.

A representative of the applicant then addressed the meeting. He explained how the plans were felt to be unrecognisable from the previous proposal and that they now represented the best possible development of the site. He spoke of responding to the concerns and criticisms of earlier schemes and how the retention and refurbishment of the brick warehouse at 1-3 Back Turner Street was in response to that, and how that warehouse would now provide be centre-piece of the new scheme and be an important part of the character of the site. However, preserving that building was going to make the development of the constrained site much more complex. So in order to make the overall scheme viable the height of the tower building had been increased. Historic England were supporting these plans and were endorsing the need for the additional height of the tower to allow for the preservation of the historic building. He concluded by saying that he did not see how else this site could be redeveloped with the historic building preserved and so felt that site would otherwise remain in poor condition and he harmful to the Norther Quarter’s character.

In response to the issues that had been raised the Planning Officer explained that the site was obviously in need of investment and redevelopment. This scheme included a lower form of development at the High Street end of the site, and the retention and redevelopment of the 1-3 Back Turner Street building, and a small area of open space. All those changes had affected the viability of the whole scheme, with the retention of the historic building adding significant abnormal costs and increasing the construction time for the whole scheme. That was all reflected in the contribution to affordable housing for these proposals and the increased height of the building at the Shudehill end of the site.

The committee discussed the impact of the taller building on the conservation areas and the character of the Northern Quarter, as well as the weight to be given to the need for investment in the site and the high-quality redevelopment and preservation of the historic warehouse building that was part of these proposals. Members accepted there was a balance to be struck between the various elements of this scheme and on balance agreed that the scheme should be supported.

Decision

Minded to approve subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report including the amendment of condition 25 referred to above, and a legal agreement in respect of reconciliation payment of a financial contribution towards off site affordable housing.

(Councillor Lyons left the meeting after consideration of this item and so took no part in the further business)