Agenda item

Agenda item

119242/FO/2018 & 119243/LO/2018 - 825 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 2SN

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

Minutes:

Planning applications 119242/FO/2018 and 119243/LO/2018 for the Erection of 22 No. (2 x 3 bed, 18 x 4 bed, 2 x 5 bed) houses (C3), conversion of Parklands (use class B1a) to 39 No. (16 x 1 bed, 20 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) apartments (C3), conversion of and extensions to The Cedars (use class B1a) to 21No (8 x 1 bed, 10 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) apartments (C3), conversion of The Coach House into 2 No. (1 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed) houses (C3) and conversion of The Lodge into 1 No. (1 x 2 bed) house (C3), totalling 85 units, including demolition works, works to highways, provision of parking, landscaping and other associated works, and Listed Building Consent for the erection of 22 No. (2 x 3 bed, 18 x 4 bed, 2 x 5 bed) houses (C3), conversion of Parklands (use class B1a) to 39 No. (16 x 1 bed, 20 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) apartments (C3), conversion of and extensions to The Cedars (use class B1a) to 21No (8 x 1 bed, 10 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) apartments (C3), conversion of The Coach House into 2 No. (1 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed) houses (C3) and conversion of The Lodge into 1 No. (1 x 2 bed) house (C3), totalling 85 units, including demolition works, works to highways, provision of parking, landscaping and other associated works were received.

 

The immediate site is located in a predominately residential context with other uses nearby, such as the Towers Business Park and Francis House Children’s Hospice. The site is not far removed from Didsbury Centre and the commercial properties associated with the A34, it lies in a highly sustainable location with access to the bus, Metrolink and Rail network.

 

The proposal would provide:

 

  • 21No (8 x 1 bed, 10 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) apartments (C3) within The Cedars
  • 39 No. (16 x 1 bed, 20 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) apartments (C3) within Parklands
  • 22 No. (2 x 3 bed, 18 x 4 bed, 2 x 5 bed) new build houses (C3)
  • 2 No. (1 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed) houses (C3) within the conversion of the Coach House and 1 No. (1 x 2 bed) house (C3), within the conversion of the Lodge, totalling the provision of 85 residential units.

 

A local resident spoke in objection to the proposals and said the proposed development will result in very significant extra traffic congestion and pollution to an already congested and polluted area. Specific reference is made to increase in congestion and pollution at peak hours. Detailed concerns are expressed that the development and other developments will adversely impact upon the operation of the highway leading to gridlock.  She said that there should be modifications to the travel plan to take account of the increased movement of vehicles, and that there should be an extension of double yellow lines to prevent inappropriate parking and obstruction of egress from the site.

 

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposals, and said that they had worked closely with officers to ensure that all the concerns had been fully addressed.  The development would see the removal of large scale inappropriate extensions to Grade II listed building and large areas of hard standing that impact harmfully upon the setting of the Listed Buildings and the character of the Didsbury St James Conservation Area in favour of the introduction of landscaping and homes within the grounds. The proposals would not cause harm to the designated heritage assets in the form of the listed buildings or the Didsbury St James Conservation Area.

 

The applicant has undertaken a trip generation exercise using the TRICS database to establish the current and expected level of trips. The information provided suggests that there would be a significant reduction in the number of trips generated by the housing development when compared with the existing office use. In the AM peak there is expected to be a decrease of 103 no. 2 way trips and in the PM peak there would be a decrease of 78 no. 2 way trips.

 

TfGM have reviewed the trip generation exercise and agree the predicted trips are appropriate. Based on this it is accepted that there is likely to be a reduced impact on local highway operation and no further assessment is required.

 

Councillor Wilson, in his capacity as Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the concerns raised by residents and said that while he does not object to the principle of the development, travel patterns would need to be closely monitored to ensure that measures were appropriate and supported the safety of residents.  He also said that the tree to be retained at the Wingate Drive elevation should be reassessed. 

 

Councillor Wilson spoke in his capacity as Ward Councillor also said that the 3% contribution towards off site affordable housing was disappointing, and requested that after the units have been sold a reconciliation exercise should be undertaken to determine whether the S106 contribution could be increased.

 

Councillor Andrew Simcock also spoke in support of the resident’s concerns and agreed with Councillor Wilson.  He said that he was not opposed to the principle of development, and recognised that this was an established and experienced operator.  He also agreed that the viability assessment should be re-visited once all of the units were sold.  He requested that consideration be given to using the S106 contribution not just for off site affordable housing but for community leisure facilities. 

 

Officers confirmed that they would be happy to discuss the possibility of community facilities being provided from the S106 contribution.

 

The Committee expressed disappointment at the lack of affordable or Social housing provision under the terms of the proposals, and said that officers must be as robust as possible when negotiating S106 contributions. 

 

Decision

 

Minded to approve subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement relating to affordable housing provision, and the conditions and reasons in the report and the late representation.

 

(Councillor Wilson declared a prejudicial interest in this matter, and although he spoke in his capacity as Ward Councillor withdrew from the meeting while the matter was discussed and while the decision was made.)

 

Supporting documents: