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

The Planning and Highways Committee deferred consideration of this application on

2 September 2021 to enable a site visit to take place to inspect how the scheme

relates to the canal and the historical aspects of the mill building.

These applications were for the refurbishment, removal/demolition, repair and reconfiguration of Brunswick Mill to create work spaces, retail and community uses (Use Class E and Use Class F2) (2034 sqm) at the ground floor and creation of 153 residential apartments (Use Class C3a) with the upper floors following demolition works together with the erection of a part 6, part 8 storey building to form 100 residential apartments (Use Class C3a) and a 5 storey buildings to form 24 residential apartments (Use Class C3a) (277 apartments in total across the 3 buildings) with associated car parking, roof top amenity space, access and servicing, landscaping, pedestrian access to the Ashton Canal and other associated works

The Planning Officer stated that there had been some additional correspondence from a local resident regarding the potential for an increase in traffic along Bradford Road due to this development and also that a late representation from a landowner had their concerns addressed in the supplementary agenda and had therefore withdrawn their representations. The Planning Officer commented that both applications here would require a separate Committee vote.

No objector to the application attended the meeting.

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

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

A member expressed concerns regarding the scale of the development, questioning the lack of any contribution towards affordable/social housing and added that there should be a contribution made to the local area, mentioning Ashton Canal Park. This member stated they would be minded to refuse without consideration of these as potential conditions.

The Planning Officer stated that the recommendation for this application was for approval and referred to the report confirming that the scheme would be re-evaluated for profitability in future and that there could be some clawback for Section 106 should profits reach 20% or more.

A member expressed that they felt the canal and mill were in need of redevelopment and stated that saving a piece of Manchester’s industrial history was a contribution in itself.

The Planning Officer agreed, stating that many mills had been lost to redevelopment in the Ancoats area.

A member asked if any S106 contributions could be diverted to Ashton Canal Park.

The Planning Officer stated that this had not been part of any considerations as the profit threshold of 20% had not been met, being set at 18% as stated in the report.

A member sought to move the officer’s recommendation of Approve for the applications with a condition that any S106 contributions, where applicable, are diverted towards some amenity for the local area.

The Head of Planning stated that the policy for S106 contributions are for housing only and therefore, this could not be added as a condition for these applications but added that further developments were expected in this area which would improve/add green spaces.

Councillor Baker-Smith moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for application 130394/FO/2021. Councillor Stogia seconded the proposal.

Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation of Approve for application 130395/LO/2021. Councillor Richards seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee agreed the applications for the reasons and subject to the conditions detailed in the reports submitted.

(Councillor Kamal took no part in the considerations or the decisions made on the applications.)