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

Planning application 120896/FO/2018 for the construction of a part 6, part 11 and part 16 storey building comprising 491 student bed spaces (sui generis), amenity space, cycle parking, landscaping, and associated highways work was received.

The site lies in a prominent location on Stretford Road next to the Hulme Arch to the east of Princess Road in Hulme. The site is viewed in the context of the Mancunian Way and Manchester City Centre when approaching Manchester using the Princess Road arterial route from the south.

The proposal comprises the redevelopment of the site to create a part 6, part 11 and part 16 storey building to be used as purpose built student accommodation. A total of 491 student rooms would be provided within the development, arranged in clusters of 7 and 8 single occupancy rooms (en-suite), organised around kitchen and lounge area.

The development would provide communal areas in the form of a social area with TV lounge, games room, gym, an informal study room and group study areas. The ground floor would include a reception area, management offices, storage, post room and a show flat.

Officers advised that in addition to the amended condition 3 in the late representation, there should be an additional condition regarding acoustic insulation to control noise breakout from the accommodation.  Officers also recommended that condition 13, in relation to a scheme of highway works is revised to include any requirement for alterations to traffic regulation orders.  In addition officers confirmed that additional information has been received from the applicant which explains how the University promotes respectful behavior in the community and in the Halls.  The applicant confirmed that the University would deploy staff on a 24 hours basis as well as students employed as residential assistants to help create a sense of community for both students and local residents and to ensure that any issues are dealt with promptly and effectively as they may arise.  Officers also confirmed that there would be an ongoing programme of community engagement and that students would be encouraged to engage positively with local residents. 

A representative of local residents spoke in objection to the proposals, and said that Hulme had undergone several rounds of regeneration in her lifetime.  The last round of regeneration was the one that local residents had endorsed, and that the aims of this regeneration would not be met by the current proposals.   She pointed out that there have been over 50 objections, and that there is a lot of discontent within the Hulme community as the University are reaping the benefits of the community that was built by residents.

Residents do not hold any resentment to the University, or to students, but the residents do object to the height and scale of the proposed development, given that they were told that the regeneration framework would prevent development of buildings over 6 storeys.   She told the Committee that the height of the building would lead to problems with loss of light and lack of privacy.  The local resident also explained that she lives next to the current student accommodation, and that residents can see into student bedrooms and students can see into resident’s bedrooms, which was not acceptable. 

The resident also said that the consultation exercise had been inadequate, and that they were unhappy that the University seemed to be under the impression that they were running the Hulme Masterplan and not the residents who had formulated it.  She said that the Aquarius Community Association had not been consulted, and neither had residents of Hopton Court.

Local residents were also unhappy that they were subjected to homophobic abuse and attacks by students, which were not dealt with adequately by the University. 

She also said that the analysis of parking problems in the area was not credible as it took no account of the fact that many students do have cars, despite the applicant not providing any parking spaces at the proposed development.  She said that the University needed to start communicating with the community in a meaningful way, as at the moment residents had no faith in the plans being proposed. 

The applicant’s agent also spoke to the Committee in support of the proposed development.  He said that this was a scheme that was a significant part of the University estate development programme.  The principle of student accommodation at this location had been well established.  Outline planning permission had been granted in 2012, and that permission was broadly similar to the current proposals in terms of bedspaces and height.  He admitted that there had been an increase in bedspaces across the campus, but that this was necessary due to the success of the University overall.  He told the Committee that the student headcount had been growing steadily, and that current projections indicated that this growth would continue. 

He said that the University had identified a need to provide their own controlled student accommodation as an alternative to agreements with 3^rd parties where the University is not able to exert the same level of management controls.  The University also considers that the provision of affordable, purpose built accommodation would encourage to return of HMO’s to family accommodation, which would benefit local communities. 

He added that there have been 3 separate engagement events in a sustained effort to engage with local residents, invitations had been distributed across a wide area with local elected members being fully briefed on the process. There has also been an investment of over £5m in public realm around the campus, and the University takes its responsibilities to the permanent residents very seriously. 

Councilor Wright spoke to the Committee and endorsed the concerns raised by residents.  She said that there were significant concerns about the proposed development, and the way in which the consultation process had taken place.  She said that there was some attempt to engage with residents, but that they must be given the opportunity to take part in discussions about the nature of development.  Councillor Wright told the Committee that the history of regeneration in Hulme was that of change and development being imposed on residents, which led to failure as this did not take into account what residents actually wanted and needed.

Councillor Wright also said that the original outline permission was for 4 x 4 storey buildings, which was significantly different to the current proposals.  She said that the proposed tower would overshadow the Hulme Archway, which was a significant local landmark. To move away from this configuration with regard to height was unacceptable.

Councilor Igbon also spoke to the Committee to endorse and support the concerns raised by residents.  She said that the development of the Brooks Building had gone well, and that the University had engaged well with residents during this process.  However, the team that had led the community engagement at that time were no longer with the University, and that when they left the level of community engagement declined significantly. Councillor Igbon also said that the University must understand that Hulme residents were not part of MMU, but that MMU was part of Hulme. 

She added that the Hulme Councillors were not opposed to the development of this plot, but they were opposed to the overall height of the development.  In addition, she said that the report was inaccurate with regard to the perceived lack of crime and disorder and pointed out that the area policing team had a dedicated officer allocated to support students.  She also said that the impact of the increased student number had not been considered properly with regard to local amenities such as GP’s, dentists and other community infrastructure. 

Officers confirmed that the principle of development of this number of bedspaces had been established for some time, and that the height of the development had been informed by the scale of buildings near to this site.  Officers added that a detailed sunlight and daylight analysis had been completed and submitted as part of the application process.  In addition, with regard to the notification process he confirmed that the City Council had notified all surrounding addresses, including those occupied by local businesses, beyond statutory requirements. Officers also confirmed that they had contacted a representative of residents on the Aquarius Estate to seek their views.

The Committee expressed concern that the proposed scheme provided no disabled parking, as this would be a barrier to any potential disabled student wishing to live or study in the City. They also expressed concern at the very low level of cycle parking that was proposed.  The Committee also queried why developments of this nature were exempt from the requirements of S106 assessment.

Officers confirmed that condition 13 in the report would ensure that there was a dedicated disabled on street parking space provided.  Condition 12 also required an increased provision for cycle parking space.  Officers also explained that with regard to affordability, purpose built student accommodation is not covered by the Policy, and that there is no requirement for student accommodation to give a contribution. 

The Committee asked for further clarification of the impact on the adjacent school with regard to loss of daylight/sunlight.  The Committee also noted that there was an existing residents’ parking scheme and that students would be prevented from applying for parking permits from this scheme, and asked for clarification as to how drop off and pick up at the start and end of term would be managed given the lack of parking provision. 

Officers confirmed that condition 16 did provide for the implementation of an access strategy relating to students moving in and out of the accommodation, and that there was a service bay with removable bollards which would allow access during these periods.  With regard to the school, officers confirmed that a specific assessment was carried out to measure the impact on the playground, and that while there would be a small reduction in daylight/sunlight, the reduction was so small it was not considered significant.  Officers also confirmed that students would not be permitted to apply for resident parking permits, and that the cost of any changes to traffic regulation orders as a result of the development would be met by the University and not residents.

The Committee asked if it would be possible to restrict the height of the tower to that agreed in the outline planning permission, and officers explained that this application had to be assessed on its own merits.  The outline planning permission had addressed the issue of the number of bedspaces to be provided, and that this application was broadly in line with this provision. 

The Committee questioned whether the proposals would enhance the local community, as required under Policy SP1 - Spatial Principles, given the level of overlooking to neighbouring buildings and the school, and officers confirmed that the distances between the buildings had been assessed and were considered acceptable.

The Committee also asked for clarification with regard to waste management arrangements, given that waste storage would be in building B, which would have no connection to building C.  Officers confirmed that they would look again at this condition to ensure that there was proper and adequate access to waste disposal facilities for all people resident in the complex. 

The Committee also expressed concern that local consultation had not been as comprehensive as it could have been, and asked if the application could be deferred for further consultation.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing confirmed that consultation had been undertaken that exceeded the statutory requirements, and that deferral could not be recommended on this basis.  The Committee asked whether there was a way of the University working with residents to restore some of the lost confidence, and The Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing confirmed that this would be raised at the regular liaison meetings that officers held with MMU, and that they would also be working with local elected members to establish the best way forward.

On balance, the Committee concluded that the development would see the reuse of previously developed land improving that appearance and character of this particular part of Hulme with a high quality well managed facility.

Decision

To approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons in the report and the late representations.