366 homes and commercial space at Arundel Street, Manchester

What was proposed

The application sought changes to an approved scheme, including internal layouts, homes, commercial space, elevations, landscaping and parking.

“Proposal Variation of planning permission 123261/FO/2019 to reconfigure internal floorspace, alteration to the residential numbers and mix together with the size of the commercial floorspace, elevational alterations and alterations to landscaping and car parking layout and numbers…”

Officer report

The site

The site contains the four-storey DOT building and a gym, lies within the Castlefield Conservation Area, and is near listed buildings.

“The site is in the St George’s area of the Hulme and has a prominent position on the IRR. The area is part of a ribbon of land that links different parts of the regional centre including Salford quays and Trafford where regeneration and renewal has been a priority for over 20 years. Its character is very different to more traditional areas of Hulme which is dominated by lower rise housing with some tower blocks.”

“The site is within the Castlefield Conservation Area and the following listed buildings are nearby: Church of St George (Grade II*); Churchyard walls, gate, piers and gates at Church of St George (Grade II); Former Canal Flour Mills (Grade II); Hulme Lock Branch Canal (Grade II); Castlefield railway Viaduct Manchester Central to Dawson Street (Grade II); Rochdale Canal lock number 92 and Castle Street Bridge (Grade II); Merchants warehouse (Grade II); Middle Warehouse at…”

Officer report

Earlier permission

Permission granted in 2019 allowed two residential blocks, refurbishment of the DOT building, commercial units, parking and cycle spaces.

“Planning Permission was granted on 23 August 2019 (123261) to erect two residential blocks ranging from 8 to 23 storeys and to refurbish the DOT building to create 355 homes. The ground floor included commercial units on Arundel Street and in the DOT Building fronting Ellesmere Street.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers considered the proposal policy-compliant, with no material changes to earlier environmental conclusions and benefits outweighing less than substantial heritage harm.

“These impacts were considered to result in less than substantial harm. Notwithstanding the considerable weight that must be given to preserving the setting of the listed buildings and conservation areas as required by virtue of S66 and S72 of the Listed Buildings Act, it was concluded that the harm caused would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme which were set out within the previous committee report.”

“The changes to the scheme would not diminish those benefits and therefore the public benefits that are required to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the historic environment remain. The proposal therefore remains complaint with paragraph 215 of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways services, environmental health and Greater Manchester Police raised no objection or had no comments, while two objections were received.

“Two objections have been received and the comments can be summarised as follows:”

“Design for Security at Greater Manchester Police have no comments.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Objectors raised concerns about reduced daylight, height and conservation-area impact, preserving the DOT building, and continuing construction activity.

“The proposal has been advertised as: a major development; of public interest; being an EIA development; and, affecting the setting of a conservation area and a listed building. Site notices were displayed around the site. Local residents and businesses were notified.”

“- Concern that the height and position of the main tower would result in light reduction in neighbouring residential apartments; - It is not clear how the large scale and especially the height of the building is in line with the conservation area and other buildings on Ellesmere Street. The scheme should have been the renovation of the DOT cycles building and preserve the area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent described the changes as necessary for building safety and highlighted more homes, heritage, biodiversity, transport and lower-carbon benefits.

The committee’s vote

Councillor Andrews moved the officer recommendation and Councillor Richards seconded it before the committee reached its decision.

“The Committee were invited to ask questions or make comments.”

“Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee was minded to approve the application, subject to the stated conditions and signing a Section 106 agreement for a later viability review.

“The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve for the application, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report, subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement to secure a mechanism to review the viability at a later stage.”

Minutes