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

(Councillor Wilson declared a prejudicial interest in this as he was going to make representations on the application to the committee. Having done so he withdrew and took no further part in this decision.)

This application was for the erection a part 3, part 7 and part 10 storey building plus a basement level to accommodate biomedical research laboratories, consultant workspace, collaboration spaces, and an ancillary café, together with external storage and servicing compound, cycle storage facility, external hard and soft landscaping, and plant and equipment.

This application relates to a 0.64 hectare site formally occupied by the four storey Paterson Building to the north of the Wilmslow Road/Oak Road junction and a separate site on the northern side of Kinnaird Road. The Paterson Building was damaged by fire in 2017 and permission was granted for its demolition in December 2018 (ref. 121526/DEM/2018). It has been substantially demolished and work is expected to be finished by September 2019. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (low risk of flooding) and is not located within an Air Quality Management Area.

The main site is located on the western side of Wilmslow Road, within the main Christie campus and adjoins hospital buildings to the west and north. The campus is made up of a variety of buildings of differing scale, though they are predominantly 4 to 5 storeys in height. On the opposite side of Oak Road is a three storey residential property and elements of a 2 storey commercial premises that fronts Wilmslow Road. There are a number of three storey residential properties and the three storey Manchester Cancer Research Centre (MCRC) on the opposite side of Wilmslow Road.

The smaller site is to the north of Kinnaird Road and adjoins the MCRC building. On the opposite side of Kinnaird Road there are 3 and 4 storey residential properties.

At the meeting the late representations were presented to the committee. Further letters of objection had been received from local residents, and the matters raised in those letters were reported. The views and concerns of a ward councillor for a neighbouring ward were set out. Further correspondence had been received from the “Rethink Patterson Residents’ Group” and the issues raised in that were set out.

Further comments and information provided by objectors were referred to relating to air quality, whether the building would be a precedent for other buildings of a similar height in that part of the city, the impact on the Withington Conservation Area, and the concept of the Team Science approach that had been an important factor in the building’s design. Clarification was also given on the form and number of letters of support and objections.

The meeting was then addressed by a local resident who spoke as the representative of the objectors to the proposals. She believed that the proposed building would be in breach of national and local planning guidance and the existing Christie Strategic Planning Framework. She felt that it would set a dangerous precedent for tall buildings in residential areas. She questioned the validity of the ‘Team Science’ analysis that had resulted in the proposal of a tall building saying that much research in that subject had concluded that horizontal arrangements were more effective that vertical arrangements, and that a lower and flatter building would be a more effective design. If the whole of the footprint area of the destroyed building was utilised it would be possible to have a lower and flatter building instead. She asked the committee to defer the application to allow for a better design to come forward that would not be as tall.

Councillor Chambers was next to address the meeting, a ward councillor. She spoke of the pride that the ward councillors have in the Christie, the care it provides and the research it undertakes. She recognised the benefits of the co-location of research and treatment activities and so the benefits of redeveloping the Patterson site. Nevertheless, there were considerable local concerns about the height and design of the proposed building and the wider impacts of additional traffic and congestion. The ward councillors sympathised with those concerns and needed reassurance that all options had been explored to reduce the height of the proposed building. She was pleased to note that the building would not set a precedent for other tall buildings. Once construction started she hoped that disruption to other road users and local residents would be minimised. She asked the committee to consider making consent subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement to provide money for the greening of the Withington Corridor.

Next to address the committee was Councillor Bridges, a ward councillor for a neighbouring ward, Old Moat. He explained that he supported the principle of redeveloping the site of the Patterson building along the lines proposed to allow the co-location of clinical and research facilities, which would necessitate a new building of considerable size and scale. He too spoke of the many local concerns about the proposed height of the new building and sought an assurance that the building would not set a precedent for another tall building at the Christie or elsewhere in that part of the city. He felt that the applicant must be called upon to demonstrate that every consideration had been given to how the building could be made smaller.

The meeting was next addressed by Councillor A Simcock, a ward councillor for the neighbouring Didsbury East ward. He spoke as the Chair of the Christie Neighbourhood Forum and as the Council’s representative on the Christie Council of Governors. He supported the application. He addressed what he considered to be the four main objections: traffic and parking; setting a precedent; the possible impact on retail business in Withington; and the height of the proposed building. In each case he outlined what had been done to address and mitigate each of those concerns. He explained that the height of the building was a product of its proposed use and function, and that to make it smaller would only harm the Christie’s ability to carry out world-class research and treatment of cancers. The building would be a benefit to the city and the North West of England region. He asked the committee to approve the application.

Councillor Kilpatrick then spoke, a councillor for the neighbouring ward of Didsbury West. He acknowledged that the work of the Christie Hospital is world-renowned and that local residents are justifiably proud of the work done there. He also acknowledged that it is generally accepted that the fire-damaged building should be replaced, but not with a building as high as the one being proposed. He felt that all options for co-location across the whole hospital site had not been sufficiently considered by the applicant before proposing a new building of this height. He urged the committee to make any approval also subject to conditions to address car parking and air quality monitoring. Notwithstanding those suggested conditions he remained of the view that the application should not be approved until the committee was assured that all other possible co-location options on the whole site had been taken into consideration, so that the scale of the new building could be reduced.

Another Didsbury West councillor, Councillor Leech, was the next to address the committee. He observed that no other building in South Manchester was anywhere near the height of what was being proposed.  He felt that some of the facilities that were to be inside this building could be housed elsewhere on the Christie site, such as the biomarker facility. If that were done then this building would not need to be so tall, and it would not have such a serious and harmful impact on the amenity of local residents. He also argued that the building could be a precedent for other applications for tall buildings at the hospital. He called on the committee to be minded to refuse the application so that the applicant had to re-examine the way that the proposed facilities could be accommodated elsewhere.

Another Didsbury East ward councillor next spoke, Councillor Wilson. He acknowledged the need to replace the destroyed building. It was accepted that to allow the hospital to achieve its ambitions to be a world-leader in the treatment of cancers the replacement building would need to be larger than the original. However, he asked that the applicant look again at all option to reduce the height of the proposed building without compromising on its function. He asked the committee to consider a further condition be added to a consent to require that the use of all the floor space on each floor be exactly as specified in the application.

The committee was then addressed by the Chief Executive of the Christie. He told the committee of the hospital’s world-leading cancer research and treatment, and how that is a significant benefit to all the people of Manchester. The new building had been designed to bring together the best clinical specialist with the best scientists to allow Team Science to flourish in Manchester. The proposed build had been designed so as to maximise the benefits of Team Science, worked on by two world-experts in the bringing together of scientists and clinicians. The plans had also been reviewed by an expert international review panel which had award the plans £25m from the UK national research infrastructure fund. Those levels of expert independent endorsement gave the hospital confidence that its strategy and design would provide the best environment for Team Science to flourish and allow Manchester to be a world-leader in cancer treatment and research. He commented that the size of the building reflected the ambition of the hospital and that all other options had been examined and were either less effective or infeasible.

The Deputy Director of Planning clarified that the height of the building had been challenged at every stage of the design of the new building so that the proposal was only as high as it needed to be to achieve the Team Science objectives, that other possibilities had been considered, and that this design was the work of experts and specialist in the Team Science field. The building would not be a precedent for further applications as this proposal, as would others would be considered on their merits, and in this case the specific and particular Team Science requirements for cancer treatment and research were an important consideration that could therefore not be applied to other tall building in South Manchester. When occupied, the building would result in 55 more people working on the hospital site. The layout and functions of the building’s space as set out in the plans was what the committee would be giving consent to, so no other layout or use would be allowable without further planning permission being sought and obtained. All relevant issues and considerations relating to impact of the building were set out in the report.

In debating the application, members acknowledged the many local concerns and the considerable level of public support for the proposal, and also the benefits of the new building to the city and the region. On balance the committee accepted that, if approved, the building would not be setting a precedent for other tall buildings as the height was only acceptable because of the specific Team Science benefits to the Christie. It was asked that consideration also be given by officers to condition 18 being amended to refer to a wifi impact assessment as well as TV and radio. The committee was not minded to grant consent subject to a Section 106 agreement.

Decision

Minded to approve subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report, to the amendment of condition 18 to also refer to wifi if the Director of Planning considers that to be appropriate, and to the expiration of the notification period in respect of the Further Environmental Information submitted by the applicant and no new issues being raised.