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

The application relates to a partial reconfiguration of a 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 stated that there had been late representations which had been circulated to the Committee. A lengthy representation had been received on the morning of the committee which, it is understood, had been sent direct to all members of the Committee. The officer informed the Committee that the comments had not raised new issues and these had been fully set out and addressed in the printed report and the late representation. The officer responded to the comments about the Equalities Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty. These had been looked at and that officers are satisfied that the issues are adequately covered in the application and the report.

The officer also confirmed that the publishing of the report before the expiry of the (fourth) neighbour notification was in accordance with usual practice and there had been no failure to comply with due process or normal practice.  

A local resident, acting as spokesperson for a resident’s group, addressed the Committee in objection to the application on the grounds of the size of the development and associated carbon, waste and oxygen issues, loss of parking spaces during development, decrease in disabled parking spaces, increase to the traffic network in the immediate surrounding area and loss of amenity to neighbouring residences.

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

Councillor Jeavons (Deansgate Ward) addressed the Committee to object to the application.

The Planning Officer referred the Committee to the report, stating that all issues raised had been addressed. The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions and comment on the application.

A member of the Committee raised a question about the development’s link with Manchester University and the percentage of units being affordable 

The Planning Officer stated that the policy required the support of one University only, adding that Manchester Metropolitan University had provided this support and that there is no policy on providing affordable student accommodation.

A member of the Committee supported the principle of housing students and releasing HMOs back into the rental market for families but felt that the proposal was too tall at 55 storeys, feeling that 30 storeys would be more acceptable.

The Planning Officer stated that Executive had supported the provision of student accommodation in line with the Committee member’s previous comments and added that the impact of buildings, once over a certain height, diminishes.

A member of the Committee raised the issue of parking for residents during and after the construction.

The Planning Officer stated that the parking spaces would be available throughout construction, other than when specific aspects of the building work were taking place.

A member of the Committee raised the issue of early publication of reports and concerns around taxis and food deliveries creating noise and disturbance in the vicinity.

The Planning Officer stated that, in this most recent round of consultation, local residents had been given 30 days to respond with comments. Some comments had been received following that round of notification. The latest comment was received on the morning of the meeting (day 37) and had been circulated to the Committee Members. Addressing the other concerns, The Planning Officer stated that there is a robust management plan for the building with regard to taxis and deliveries.

Councillor Lyons moved that the Committee refuse the application on the grounds of excessive height, loss of amenity to local residents, lack of support from Universities and the impact of adding 853 students to a local community. Councillor Hutchinson seconded the proposal.

The Committee voted against Councillor Lyons’ proposal.

Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve for the application, subject to a legal agreement. Councillor Hutchinson seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee is Minded to Approve the application as detailed in the report submitted, subject to the signing of a legal agreement in relation to infrastructure improvements.

(The Committee adjourned at this point for 10 minutes.)