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

This application was for the erection of a twelve-storey purpose built student accommodation building with three storey element to rear comprising 82 units with roof top terrace and associated landscape and highway works, following demolition of existing structures.

At the Planning and Highways Committee meeting on 14 March 2019, members resolved to defer determination of this application in order to undertake a site visit before making a decision. A site visit was undertaken on the 11th April 2019. The committee then met later that same day and at that meeting members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns expressed regarding the negative impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties resulting in a loss of amenity, overlooking, and reduction in daylight. The application was therefore deferred and the Director of Planning asked to bring a report which addresses the concerns raised and potential reasons for refusal.

Following committee on the 11th April 2019 the applicant sought to review the scheme with a view to making changes to address the concerns that had been expressed by the committee. Revised plans had been submitted in June 2019. A further site notification was therefore undertaken on the basis of the revised drawings.

The alterations to the scheme comprise a reduction in the height of the rear of the building by nine storeys from twelve storeys to three storeys and a consequent reduction in the number of units from 97 units to 82 units.

At the meeting it was reported that further residents’ comments and objections had been received. These raised concerns about the proposed access for the servicing of the building and refuse collection. That would be over an area of land used as a play area by children, and the vehicle movements would be a potential hazard. A petition of 87 signatures had also been received opposing the development on the grounds of reduction in daylight levels in surrounding properties, over shadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy, inadequate means of access, traffic generation, noise, disturbances and the risk of anti-social behaviour.  Further representations had also been received from the applicant that related to community engagement, access proposals and plans for the development of community benefit projects as part of the scheme.

The meeting was addressed by an objector to the application. He spoke of residents’ continuing concerns about loss of light to nearby buildings, loss of amenity to residents and the local community, disruption to the local highways and extra congestion, and that despite the changes proposed in the revised plans the development would still be over-dominant.

Councillor Wright, a Hulme ward councillor, then addressed the committee. She supported the views expressed by the objector, echoing that little had changed between the original application and the revised plans. The building would still be towering over neighbouring properties resulting in loss of light. She asked the committee to again refuse the application.

A representative of the applicant then spoke. The applicant is a well-established developer of student accommodation and this scheme was their first development in Manchester. The scheme had been redesigned since the committee had considered it in April, with work done to assess the possible impact on the daylight levels enjoyed by neighbouring buildings. The outcome of those sunlight daylight assessments were reported in the officer’s report. The application was supported by the University and the applicant was committed to being a good neighbour.

The committee was told of the way that these revised plans differed from the scheme that was rejected by the Committee earlier in the year. Members noted the study of light levels that had been done by the applicant. There were concerns expressed about the finding that of 52 windows in the student accommodation that had been assessed, only 19 would comply with BRE guidelines for light levels. Members were reluctant to accept that students were not deserving of the same levels of daylight that would be expected for more permanent residents of a development. Members welcomed the changes that the developer had made to the scheme but still felt that the proposals were overly detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, would result in accommodation with insufficient levels of light, inadequate servicing arrangements, loss of privacy and traffic concerns.

Decision

Minded to refuse for the reasons that the proposed development would impact on neighbouring properties with a loss of amenity, overlooking, and reduction in daylight to neighbouring properties and within the building itself. The committee agreed that the proposal was therefore in conflict with policies Policy SP1 - Spatial Principles, Policy EN1 - Design Principles and Strategic Character Areas, Policy EN 2 - Tall Buildings, and Policy DM1 - Development Management.

(The Head of Planning has been requested to submit a report which addresses the concerns raised and whether there are reasons for refusal which could be sustained.)