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

This application was proposing full planning permission for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of two 51-storey residential buildings (Use Class C3) creating 988 homes across two phases, including residential amenity facilities, basement car parking, landscaping and public realm, servicing and access arrangements, highways alterations, and associated works.

This 0.88 ha site is bounded by Great Jackson Street, Pond Street and Owen Street.

It is adjacent to Deansgate Square, with the 64 storey South Tower and 50 storey

East Tower being closest to the site. Much of the area has been redeveloped with the four towers of Deansgate Square (37 to 64 storeys) to the north and Crown Street (21 to 52 storeys) to the west. Two further towers are being constructed at Crown Street phase two which include a school and park.

The Planning officer had no further information or additional comments to make.

No objectors to the application attended the meeting or addressed the Committee on the application.

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

The Chair invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions.

A member stated their concern regarding the development of almost 1000 homes, none of which would be affordable, concern that the profit appeared to be £4million and £90,000 was being offered towards affordable housing which was expressed as being a poor amount to put back into the community.

The Planning Officer stated that the figures had been independently assessed and added that the scheme would contribute 0.6 hectares of public space that would link up with other spaces and parks around Great Jackson Street, creating a tapestry of public spaces linking Hulme with the City Centre. Additionally, the scheme would contribute £0.5million towards a new school fit-out and there was a clawback mechanism for affordable housing, which was in line was many other previously approved applications put before the Committee.

A member stated that they understood the point around consistency, but it appeared to be that Manchester had less affordable housing proposals than Salford. The member then stated that they could not support this application with the associated level of profit.

The Planning Officer referred back to his previous statement and stated they could not add anything further.

A member stated that they felt £90,000 contribution to affordable housing was small but understood the Planning Officer’s explanation. The member felt that there were complex issues but welcomed the contribution towards the school and public realm, stating that it would benefit property owners and the city as a whole, adding that maintenance costs to inhabitants saves the Council the costly task of keeping areas clean and desirable. Whilst noting that £90,000 wouldn’t buy a house in Manchester, the member expressed her support overall.

The Planning Officer acknowledged that affordable housing is a big issue but stated that the viability had been well scrutinised, adding that there could be a further contribution, additional to the £90,000.

A member stated that £90,000 was a poor amount but that other factors made the scheme favourable on the whole. The member felt that there were allegations that Manchester City Council did not take affordable housing seriously but wanted to send a clear message that it is an important issue.

A member expressed that they trust the Officers but asked what profit margins are being considered viable.

The Planning Officer stated that the general figure was 20% but can be as low as 10% or 15% and have to be risk assessed for profitability.

The previous member asked for the figure for this scheme.

The Planning Officer confirmed that this scheme was set at 11% for profitability.

A member requested information on Class C3 in the report and also whether play areas, age friendly seating and social infrastructure, such as doctors and dentists, to serve the new tenants.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the Class C3 information was covered in condition 37 of the report and confirmed that there were conditions covering the outdoor public realm, but that wording could be altered with regard to age friendly seating and a play area could be explored here or across other Great Jackson Street sites. The Planning Officer confirmed that the developers were already contributing to the creation of a new school in the area and that they were working with medical providers at other sites.

A member noted the use of glass walls and questioned if any thought had been given to glare from these onto other nearby dwellings or could be considered in future.

The Planning Officer stated that they will pick up this point for future similar schemes.

Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation of Minded to Approve subject to a legal agreement for a financial contribution towards off site affordable housing. Councillor Richards seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee agreed the recommendation of Minded to Approve subject to a legal agreement for a financial contribution towards off site affordable housing.