Mixed-use towers and offices at Albert Bridge House, Manchester

What was proposed

The scheme proposed two residential towers, an office building, commercial uses, public realm, landscaping, access works and demolition of the existing complex.

“Proposal Creation of a mixed use development comprising three separate components: an office building of up to 18 storeys (Use Class E (g)) with ground floor commercial, leisure, food and drink uses (All Use Class E (g)) and/ or drinking establishment (Sui Generis) with rooftop plant and roof top amenity; a residential building up to 37 storeys (Use Class C3a) with roof top plant level, basement car and cycle parking; and a residential building up to 49 storeys (Use Class…”

“The proposal would comprise the demolition of Albert Bridge House with the erection of 2 residential buildings at 37 and 49 storeys and an 18 storey building containing 29,902 sq. m of office floorspaces and 560 sq. m (GIA) of flexible commercial space. Public realm would surround the buildings with a central area and a riverside walkway.”

Officer report

The site today

The vacant site contains Albert Bridge House, two surface car parks, Albert Bridge Gardens and trees beside the River Irwell.

“This 0.89 ha site is bounded by the River Irwell, Bridge Street, St Mary’s Parsonage and Trinity Bridge. It is in the St Mary’s Parsonage SRF Framework Area. It is occupied by the vacant Albert Bridge House (constructed in the 1950s) along with two surface car parks and Albert Bridge Gardens.”

“Albert Bridge House is an office building of 18 storey’s flanked by a 6 and 13 storey blocks, with a single storey building fronting the River Irwell. Albert Bridge House currently offers 19,432 sqm of office floorspace. The complex has been vacant since October 2022 and was previously occupied by HMRC. A City Council owned 65 space pay and display car park is accessed by Bridge Street. There are circa 137 parking spaces across the two car parks located within the Site.”

Officer report

Planning and site history

The site is within the St Mary’s Parsonage framework area, where nearby office and commercial developments have received consent.

“The site is in the St Mary’s Parsonage SRF. Consent has been granted nearby for:”

“135028/FO/2022 and 135029/LO/2022: Reedham House - Demolition of 31- 33 King Street West and erection of 14 storey office building and the refurbishment of the existing buildings at 3 Smithy Lane and Carriage Works on Garden Lane / St Mary's Parsonage with ground floor commercial.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a Section 106 agreement securing a future affordable-housing viability review and retention of the project architect.

“Legal Agreement : The proposal would be subject to a legal agreement under section 106 of the Planning Act to secure an appropriate reconciliation payment for offsite affordable housing through a further review at an agreed point with a mechanism to re-test the viability should there be a delay in the implementation of the proposal as explained in the paragraph with the heading ‘Affordable Housing’.”

“Recommendation : Minded to Approve subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a future viability review on an open book basis to capture any improvement in position to provide an affordable housing contribution and to ensure the project architect is retained.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Historic England, highways, environmental, flood-risk and other consultees raised no objection or supported the scheme, generally subject to conditions.

“Head of Highways- No objection subject to conditions relating to cycle parking provision, off-site highways works, a Travel Plan and a construction management plan.”

“Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions relating to flood risk management, piling and mitigation for risk from contaminated land.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The applicant’s agent supported the scheme, while no objectors attended and the planning officer had nothing to add.

What members debated

Members questioned the lack of affordable housing, traffic, food and drink uses, disturbance, and details of the public realm and play area.

“Councillor Davies noted that some aspect of the application were of merit, i.e. the public realm but she shared the disappointment regarding the lack of affordable housing. She noted concerns on how to mitigate problems from further food and beverage establishments offering alcohol and creating further disturbances. She also noted that traffic was already a problem in this area and shared the concerns of objectors.”

“The Planning Officer stated that the Section 106 aspect was not withdrawn as it was never an up-front contribution and was never part of the previous scheme and it was clear that the city council do require affordable housing but this was not viable following the process of assessment. Regarding food and beverage premises, this was now the main draw of visitors to the city centre and with the location of this proposal, should be a very successful destination for this.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Andrews moved the officer recommendation and Councillor Richards seconded it.

“Councillor Andrews moved the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee was minded to approve the application subject to the reported conditions and a Section 106 agreement covering viability review and architect retention.

“The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve on the application, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s reports, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a future viability review on an open book basis to…”

“Manchester City Council Minutes Planning Committee 23 October 2025 capture any improvement in position to provide an affordable housing contribution and to ensure the project architect is retained.”

Minutes