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

This application is for the partial reconfiguration of existing Multi-Storey Car Park (MSCP), including temporary access off Great Marlborough Street, construction of 5 storey external ramps, closure of vehicular access to top level; and construction of new facade; and partial demolition of the surplus part of existing MSCP and erection of a part 55, part 11 storey, part 4 storey mixed-use building comprising 853 Purpose Built Student Accommodation units (sui generis), ancillary amenity space and support facilities, and 786sqm (GIA) SME incubator workspace (Use Class B1), including public realm improvements and other associated work.

 

The Planning Officer provided an update including drawing Members attention to the late representation report.  The update referred to further comments received from the Macintosh Village Residents Company and the responses to the comments from the Director of Planning as follows:

 

- The objection to the third notification was on behalf of 425 individual

objectors;

- Members should receive a copy of their legal advice, and a more professional

and accurate record of the impact for the developer, given residents would be

successful in injunction (the possibility must be understood by Members);

- A 6-year construction plan has been communicated to residents. The 3 years

within the report was a fictional plan and is misleading

- The price point was issued in the consultation documents stating £275 per

week so it needs to be in the document and link to profitability and a more

transparent S106. The committee report suggests the applicant is borrowing

£150 million but is yet to land on a business model or price point?

- A legal offer was made during the second consultation of a direct payment to

Macintosh Village Residents after sharing street crime CCTV footage and the

acknowledgement that anti-social behaviour will increase pro rata with the

increase from student caste V1 before they sold it;

- The statement regarding the track record of the applicant is biased. They no

longer own student castle and a balanced report would inform members know

of their track record of selling every 3 years;

- There are deliverability challenges and highways have said no access nor use

of Hulme Street for cranes. The applicant says they will not use a tower crane

as HSE would not allow residents to use the car park. So where is the crane

shown on the construction plan during residents’ consultation 2 and 3 going to

go?

- A miscalculation with the UNITE scheme regarding access for the crane and

site was made and the whole road was closed for the duration. You cannot

close Great Marlborough Street for the duration nor use or access Hulme

Street so where is the evidence of deliverability?

- The report does not reference the previous planning refusals in the area for

over dominance of a tall building not on a podium;

- The report does not reference the Manchester Residential Design Guide;

- The report does not reference Part L of the Building Regulations that does not

allow the use of an energy tariff to pass sustainability.

 

Responses for the Director of Planning:

 

Whilst the proposal would create 853 units, the size of the units means that some

could be shared and up to 934 students could live there. The applicant intends to

offer room to single occupants with the larger studios reserved for those with

disabilities. However, for the purposes of considering the impact of the

development, the planning submission, including the Environmental Statement, has

considered the maximum capacity of the building. The report notes that room sizes

are larger than other nearby student accommodation. 97% of the studios exceed 18

sqm.

 

The response of the Macintosh Village Residents Company (third notification) was

supported by 425 individual objectors. The third notification was subject to a 30-day

consultation, and publicised in the form of a press notice, due to information being

received under the EIA Regulations. In addition, this information was the subject of

a 21 days re-notification was undertaken with local residents.

 

The construction period is expected to be 5 years with the build lasting 3 and half

years and the remainder for fit out.

 

The constrained nature of the site and the need to ensure that the MSCP remains

operational throughout, creates construction and highway management challenges

together with disruption to the surrounding residential area from noise, dust and

traffic. The specific logistical requirements are still being considered with Highway

Services and indicative details are provided in the report. The final location of the

tower crane(s) has yet to be agreed, but Hulme Street would not be used for its

erection or dismantling. A tower crane strategy would be required and condition 11

should be amended to make this more explicit.

 

Access to the MSCP would be managed when the crane is erected/dismantled in the

interest of safety and access would be restricted/supervised during this time. The

users of the car park would be given prior notification of any restrictions. In any

instance where access is required without prior notice, or in the event of an

emergency, the car park areas would be made safe in order to facilitate the request

for access at the earliest opportunity. It is envisaged that this will be for short periods

of time only during the lifting operations.

 

Once the crane has been erected, general construction exclusions zones would only

apply to specific construction areas of the MSCP which include the roof of the car

park. As detailed within the report, the car park would remain in use with appropriate

protection measures in place to ensure segregation from the construction site. Use

of the lifts and main stair core would remain accessible. Any changes to access

routes will be communicated in advance and clearly sign posted.

 

The applicant’s contractor has developed management measures to minimise

localise impacts on residents and the local highway network. This includes air

quality monitoring measures and Just In Time (JIT) delivery systems which ensures

that waggons do not idle on the surrounding road network.

 

The construction impacts of this development can be managed and mitigated so that

amenity or highway impacts would not warrant refusal. Condition 11 would ensure

that construction impacts are mitigated and agreed to maintain the operational

effectiveness of the highway network and pedestrian safety and minimise impact on

residential amenity.

 

Officers are in receipt of a legal opinion obtained by Macintosh Village Residents

Company with regards to the impact of the redevelopment of the site on the

leaseholders car parking spaces within the MSCP. It notes that the Residents

Company oppose the redevelopment of the car park and that the purpose of the

legal opinion is to determine whether the redevelopment of the car park is allowed

within the confines of the leases and whether the redevelopment would result in an

actionable interference with the rights of leaseholders.

 

The legal opinion states that the redevelopment of the car park, insofar as it would

reduce the number of spaces available, is not permissible by the lease in or of itself

and that the development of the car park (both during the 6 year construction phase

and upon the completion) would likely result in actional interference with the rights of

tenants with the benefit of the right of way and the right to park. The legal opinion

concludes that the tenants with the benefits of the rights would be able to seek

restrain such interference by injunction.

 

Members are advised that there are private third-party property rights relating to the

right to park in the MSCP. Such rights are protected and enforced through other

legislation and are not material planning considerations.

 

It is noted that Macintosh Village Residents Company disagree with this position and

state that the presence of such rights effect the deliverability of the scheme which

they believe is material to the planning decision.

 

Increasing the supply of purpose-built student accommodation would help to relieve

pressure on existing homes in the city centre which drives up rents and are Council

Tax exempt. There are also known issues, particularly at Manchester Metropolitan

University, who is unable to offer all first-year students’ accommodation in purpose built student accommodation.

 

The scheme on New Wakefield Street was promptly delivered upon the grant of planning permission and is now ready for occupation.

 

The applicant has a track record of delivering student accommodation schemes. It is

not material to the determination of this planning application whether the applicant

chooses to then sell their interest in a site and all obligations are attached to the land

and not the applicant.

 

This planning application has to be determined on its merits. The scale, height

appearance is considered in detail in the report particularly the impacts on the wider

townscape and heritage. The images within the report, including cumulative impacts

(shown in wire lines) comprehensively considers the local and wider impact on the

City scape and concludes, that in most cases, the impacts are beneficial or

commensurate with other nearby developments.

 

Where harm does arise, particularly to the setting of the conservation area and

nearby listed buildings, this harm is suitability mitigated by the significant public

benefits which would arise from a project of this nature. The proposal therefore

accords with paragraphs 193, 194 and 196 of the NPPF and section 72 of the of the

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

 

Localised impacts on the wind environment and impacts on daylight, sunlight and

loss of privacy are also considered likely and the effects are outlined in some detail

in the report. Such impacts are not unusual in a city centre context and would

therefore not warrant refusal of this planning application.

 

The report does reference the Residential Quality Guide a summary of which is

included in the policy section of the report.

 

The correspondence relating to a legal offer etc is not part of this planning

application and is not a relevant planning consideration. Designing out crime is a

key planning consideration and the application has been reviewed by Design for

Security at GMP with recommendations in the Crime Impact Statement. The

recommendations in their report have each been included in the design including

increased CCTV.

 

The development exceeds relevant planning policies and those outlined within Part L

of the Building Regulations without a specific energy tariff. Commitment to a zerocarbon energy tariff is one additional means, beyond Part L, that forms part of the low carbon strategy.

 

The objector’s representative addressed the Committee and outlined the reasons for the objections submitted.

 

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on the proposal.

 

Councillor Jeavons (ward Councillor) addressed the Committee to object to the application due to the potential impact on the surrounding area and the Mackintosh Village and requested the Committee undertake a site visit. The Committee was informed that the development would negatively impact the residential community and unbalance the area through influx of such a large number of students.

 

The Planning Officer reported that the points raised had been extensively covered in the planning report.

 

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

 

A member raised five points in respect of the application and welcomed the proposal for a site visit. The points raised were:

 

·         Is the development deliverable if it is open to legal challenge.

·         The cumulative negative impact of the area with the increase in students living in the development.

·         The lack of affordable accommodation within the development.

·         The details on the infrastructure improvements and the importance of agreeing them before the application could be approved.

·         The unacceptable visual appearance of the development.

 

Members of the Committee supported the request for a site visit

 

Councillor White moved the proposal for the Committee to undertake a site for the reasons of the size/massing of the proposed building and its potential impact on the surrounding area. Councillor Flanagan seconded the proposal.

 

Decision

 

To agree to defer consideration of the planning application to allow a site visit to be carried out by the members of the Committee.

(Councillor Nasrin Ali did not take part in the vote on the decision due to technical issues.)