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

Planning application 118045/FO/2017 for the erection of a 10 storey residential building (Use Class C3a) together ground floor commercial units (Use Classes A1, A2, B1, D1 and D2) (379 sqm) and the erection of 35 storey residential building (Use Class C3a), following demolition of existing buildings, together with the change of use of the former Department of Transport Building to form a mixed use residential and commercial building (Use Classes C3a, A1, A2, B1, D1 and D2), forming 386 residential apartments in total with associated amenity space, car and cycle paring, access, landscaping and other associated works was received.

The Planning and Highways Committee resolved that they were minded to refuse the application at its meeting on 20 September 2018 and Members requested that a report be brought back which addresses concerns and which presented potential reasons for refusal that could be substantiated on the grounds that the proposal would have unacceptable impact on the setting of the Castlefield Conservation Area and the Grade II* Listed St George’s Church.  

Officers confirmed that detailed late representations had been received from the Britannia Basin Community Forum objecting to the proposals, and summarised these for the Committee’s consideration. Officers also confirmed that the applicant had agreed to lower the height of the tower by 2 storeys in response to resident’s concerns and the Committee comments at its meeting on 20 September 2018.

Officers also told the Committee that the applicant had met with the Britannia Basin Community Forum and had committed to provide community space for their monthly meetings and, with prior notice, community events throughout the year.

A local resident and member of the Britannia Basin Community Forum spoke in objection to the proposals, and said that other than the offer of a reduction in height of 2 storeys, there had been no effort on the part of the developer to address any of the residents’ concerns.  She reiterated the comments made by the Committee on 20 September 2018 and asked what was the point of a conservation area if it was going to be ignored.  She also told the Committee that while the Mancunian Way had been called a “scar”, which fragmented the area, a development of the nature proposed would damage the conservation area further rather than enhance it.  The resident also gave examples of other proposed development that had been rejected as inappropriate for the area which were actually smaller in scale, height and massing than this development. 

The resident also reiterated concerns regarding vehicle movements and parking problems in the area, and pointed out that the area was subject to a 12 month programme of road works which had severely exacerbated the problems that residents faced on a daily basis. She told the Committee that the traffic problems made the area unsafe for current residents, and that the increase in population that would result from a development of this size would only make matters worse. 

Residents welcome development of the area, but said that this proposal was not appropriate and should be scaled down to deliver a more thoughtful enhancement of the area that better addresses the setting of the church and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.   

Councillor Igbon spoke in objection to the proposals, and said that she fully supported the concerns of residents.  She said that she fully understood the Policy regarding City Centre development, but reiterated that although this part of Hulme did come under the Policy area, it was still a residential area.  Councillor Igbon added  that the highways infrastructure was inadequate for the current residential population and to add to the population with a development of this size would make matters much worse.  She said that there were both accidents and near misses every day due to the volume of traffic and vehicle movements.  The area will have 6000 residents with just 2 routes into the area and 1 route out of the area.

Councillor Igbon added that although the report asserted that the site was in a highly sustainable location for public transport, the reality was that the public transport available was not adequate for current residents.  A development of this size would impact on residential amenity, crime and disorder and the health and wellbeing of existing and future residents. 

Councillor Wright also spoke in support of Councillor Igbon and the residents.  She said that some people might say that this part of Hulme was in the City Centre, but that it was a residential area and part of Hulme Ward.  She said that a lot of the points raised at the previous meeting had not been addressed, including the issue of waste management and storage, parking and the highways infrastructure, and that the current proposals were not as good as the original offer had been.  Councillor Wright added that this was not a “gateway to the City” but a residential area and that development should take regard to existing residents and not just people driving through.

The applicant’s agent spoke to the Committee in support of the proposals and said that they had carried out a very detailed analysis of the area which had informed the design process.  They had tested the design and its impact using industry standard evaluation tools.  He agreed that there was always a degree of subjectivity in developments of this nature, and that he understood that height was one of the major issues to address.  He reiterated that the design could be adjusted to remove 2 complete floors, but did not think that height was an overall sustainable reason for refusal.   They had looked at the overall nature of the conservation area and concluded that according to NPPF tenents, the design must be taken as a whole. He said that a development of such high quality and design should be considered to be a neutral or positive contribution to an area that was largely modern in nature, albeit slightly run down. 

He agreed that there would be a degree of harm to the setting of St George’s Church, but that this was at the lower end of substantial and more than offset by the benefits of the scheme.  He added that conservation areas should never be static, but should be welcoming of change and innovation to become vibrant, thriving and desirable places to enhance the economic, social and cultural life of the city.  He added that small families could be easily accommodated in the 2-bed units, and that there was a degree of activity at street level that had always been included in the planned development. 

Officers commented that they had not been asked to negotiate a different scheme, but had been asked to assess and comment of the height of the development and the impact on the conservation area and the setting of the listed buildings. 

The Committee expressed significant concern that the affordable housing contribution was not enough.  They commented that Hulme in particular is an area where there was a need for affordable, family homes and that not enough of these are being built.  The Committee also agreed that the height of the tower, even when reduced by 2 floors did dominate the setting of the listed St George’s Church.  In addition the Committee were concerned that the car parking provision was inadequate and should be addressed. 

The Committee also acknowledged that conservation areas should not be static areas of preservation, but that development should be done in a sensitive way, and while there were aspects of this proposal that were sympathetic to the conservation area, there were other parts of the proposal that were not.  The Committee could not see how the Tower aspect of the proposals would not cause significant harm to both the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.  The Committee also commented that the Castlefield conservation area had been extended in the 1980’s to include St George’s, so this area had not been included by mistake.  The Committee considered that the current proposals did not complement the conservation area but dominated it to an unacceptable degree.   The Committee concluded that the proposals would cause significant harm to both the conservation area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

Decision

To refuse the application for the following reason.

The erection of a 35 storey tower and 10 storey building would, by virtue of its siting, scale and appearance, result in a form of development that would be overly dominant and would harm the form, character and setting of the Castlefield Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent Grade II* listed former St George’s Church.