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

The application relates to a site, known as T1, is 0.32 hectares and bounded by Water Street, Manchester Goods Yard, and Grape Street. It is accessed from Water Street and is in use as a construction site for Manchester Goods Yard. The original planning permission (114385/FO/2016) approved the Manchester Goods Yard offices and a residential ‘Tower (T1). Manchester Goods Yard is under construction and this proposal would replace the ‘T1’ element of that permission. The site is in the Castlefield Conservation Area and is part of a Masterplan and Strategic Regeneration Framework.

At its meeting on 30 July 2020 the Committee resolved that it was 'minded to refuse' the application on the grounds that the number of units proposed was too large and it did not provide sufficient parking for disabled people. They requested officers to bring a report to the next meeting which addresses these concerns.

This proposal would supersede the Tower 1 element of the previous permission with a 32 storey building comprising 390 Co-Living Apartments with 210no. 2-, 3- and 4-bed shared apartments and 180no. studios with 870 Bedspaces. There would be ancillary amenity space on four floors consisting of residents’ amenity space, a gym, commercial space, and  self storage. There would be 152 cycle spaces in the building and 40 sheffield stands in the public realm.

80% of the 870 bedspaces would be within the Duo, Trio or Quad units which would all be single occupancy.  The Duo, Trio and Quad (2, 3 and 4 bed) units could be a primary residence and would only be available on tenancies from 6-months upwards. When single occupancy is taken into account, each of the shared units meets or exceeds NDSS, without taking into account access to shared amenity. Bedroom areas would provide as much useable floorspace as possible.  Each apartment will have a shared communal kitchen and lounge. The studios would be available solely on short-term lets, up to 6 months in length, so would not be a primary residence.  This would be controlled via the Section 106 Agreement. 

The Chair invited a Planning Officer to make comment on the application.

A Planning Officer stated that they had looked at addressing the Committee’s concerns following the previous Committee meeting on 30 July 2020, stating that the applicant had secured 35 car parking spaces in an adjacent building for the sole use of disabled parking for both buildings, namely T1 (minded to refuse at the previous committee meeting) and T2 (approved at the previous committee meeting). The Planning Officer confirmed that if T1 were not approved then the disabled parking spaces would not be available for T2. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the scheme was in keeping with the Executive resolution and that if the Co-living scheme were to be subject to a more dispersed approach it would use up more land and have a broader consequence on other requirements for commercial space in the St John’s area and create a larger challenge in managing a series of smaller schemes compared to the single purpose building presented in this application.

The Planning Officer then confirmed that the scheme approved by the Committee (T2) accommodated a larger number of occupants than the scheme being considered here (T1). The Planning Officer then addressed previous concerns of the Committee around the longevity of the project and any future plans for the building should the Co-living scheme not deliver and stated that the applicant had provided a conversion plan, to a mainstream living purpose, which would be put in place in the event that the initial purpose was not successful. The Planning Officer then informed the Committee that the more affordable accommodation in the building was set within units comprising of larger spaced dwellings and that the studios were to be the more costly. The Planning Officer’s final comment was that, due to the approval of the linked scheme at T2, Planning Officers did not feel that a refusal from the Committee could be substantiated.

The applicant’s agent attended the meeting and addressed the Committee.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment and ask questions.

A Member of the Committee sought clarity on what tenants options would be when they were ready to co-habit with a partner, for instance, and the Planning Officer responded to the Member that the dwellings in this scheme were all for the purpose of single occupancy.

Members expressed concerns over whether the Manchester spatial standards were being met, the proposals of ensuring short term tenancies of six months maximum were maintained and that the proposal is untested.

Councillor Lyons proposed the application be minded to refuse on grounds of inadequate living space and that it is counterintuitive to the cautious approach set out in the Executive report.

Councillor Lovecy seconded the proposal stating that there was a further consideration to take into account regarding Coronavirus when dealing with shared dwelling spaces, stating that it would require several tenants to self-isolate in the event of one occupant contracting the virus.

The Planning Officer addressed the concerns stating that the space requirements were met within the dwellings with potential to be permanent and that only the dwellings with a maximum six month tenancy did not meet the standards. The Planning Officer referred to concerns around Coronavirus stating that the accommodation may not be available commercially for four years.

The Director of Planning made comment on the Committee’s previous minded to refuse decision stating that that decision had been made on the basis of the lack of disabled car parking and that the matter had now been addressed and it was now felt that there was no reason for refusal which could be substantiated.

The Committee voted and gave support to the decision to minded to refuse.

Decision

Minded to refuse on the basis that the number and size of co-living units are in conflict with current space standard and the terms set out within the Co-living in Manchester report to the Executive (3 July 2020).

The application was deferred and the Director of Planning asked to bring a report back which addresses the concerns raised and whether there are reasons for refusal that could be sustained.