Manchester City Council

Agenda item

Agenda item

124888/FO/2019 - Land Bound By Addington Street, Marshall Street, Cross Keys Street And Chadderton Street, Manchester, M4 4RJ - Piccadilly Ward

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

Minutes:

The application was for an erection of a six to nine storey residential building (Use Class C3) comprising eighty dwellings including nine townhouses and seventy-one apartments with a resident’s lounge, refuse, plant, new substation, cycle storage, an internal landscaped courtyard and improvements to the adjacent footways on Marshall Street, Chadderton Street, Addington Street and Cross Keys Street and other associated works following removal of existing car park. The site measuring 0.12 hectares is bounded by Marshall Street, Cross Keys Street, Chadderton Street and Addington Street/Ring Road and is rectangular in shape.

 

The planning officer did not add anything further to the report submitted.

 

No objector to the application attended the meeting.

 

Councillor Wheeler addressed the Committee in his capacity as ward Councillor (Piccadilly) and welcomed the proposal, in particular the design and use of materials including red brick externally. Reference was made to the level of affordable housing settlement (£220,000) commuted sum and the need to ensure that an uplift assessment takes place to provide potential future funding for affordable housing schemes.

 

The applicant addressed the Committee on the application.

 

The Planning officer informed the Committee that the affordable housing appraisal had taken place and was referred to in the report had been independently tested. The assessment produced a figure of 2% affordability settlement. There is an opportunity to increase this amount under the 106 agreement to test the figure at two points in the future, in the event of the uplift of the property’s value. In additional environmental improvement works are to be included in the proposal.

 

The Chair invited Committee members to ask questions and comment on the application.

 

Members referred to the sum reached as part of the affordable housing settlement, in view of potential profit (17%) from the development members considered the settlement to be low and it was suggested that a 5% contribution would be more appropriate.

 

A member commented on the Condition 10 of the proposal and requested Planning Officers to ensure that the landscaping plan is made more robust to ensure the inclusion of specific tree types and planting arrangements and to set out the planning officer expectations of the developer. 

 

The planning officer reported that the approved drawings package will include full details of the planting of trees and other plants to be included within the landscaping plan. The officer also reiterated the advice that the viability assessment had been thoroughly tested and the financial contribution set out in the report was in accordance with national guidance and policy.  On this basis the proposal is in accordance with relevant Core Strategy policy.  

 

The members concluded that the application required further consideration and negotiation with the applicant in respect of the concerns raised regarding the affordable housing settlement. The Director of Planning was requested to bring a further report to the next meeting to address members concerns and to advise if there are potential reasons for refusal that could be substantiated. 

 

Decision

 

To defer the application on the basis that theCommittee is minded to refuse the application for the reason it considers the proposed affordable housing settlement is too low and the contribution level should be discussed with the applicant in view of concerns expressed.

Supporting documents: