Temporary homeless accommodation at Mariana House, Manchester

What was proposed

The application proposed changing a vacant care home into 19-bedroom temporary accommodation for homeless people with mobility issues.

“Proposal Change of Use from Care Home (Use Class C2) to Temporary Living Accommodation for Homeless (Sui Generis)”

“The application proposes a change of use from a vacant care home (Use Class C2) to a facility providing temporary accommodation for homeless individuals with mobility issues (Sui Generis). The development would consist of 19 bedrooms with accessible facilities and serve as transitional housing for people awaiting resettlement into permanent or alternative accommodation. The intended occupants are primarily single men and women, along with a small number of childless couples.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a vacant, two-storey former care home in a mainly residential area, opposite a listed school building.

“The application site relates to a large, detached, two storey, former residential care home (Mariana House) which provided personal care for up to 23 older people. The building is now vacant.”

“The immediate area is predominantly residential in character, with the property bounded to the north, east and south by two storey dwellinghouses. To the west, on the opposite side of Alexandra Road South lies KD Grammar School for Boys – a substantial, two storey Grade II listed building in use as an independent Islamic school for boys, along with a student hall of residence, formerly known as Hartley Hall.”

Officer report

How the accommodation would operate

The facility would house up to 17 single people and two couples, with council referrals, an average stay of six months and no families.

“The proposed development would provide Manchester City Council’s Homelessness Service with a 19-bed temporary accommodation facility, including accessible features for individuals with mobility challenges.”

“The facility is intended primarily for single men and women, along with a small number of childless couples. It would accommodate up to 17 single individuals and 2 couples at any one time. Families would not be housed at this property.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it reused a vacant facility, met an urgent housing need and could manage potential neighbourhood impacts.

“The proposal involves bringing a vacant care home back into use, continuing its role in providing supported housing, without resulting in the loss of family accommodation.”

“The development would contribute to addressing urgent and significant housing needs by offering short-term accommodation for homeless individuals whilst longer- term housing solutions are arranged. This support would help improve access to healthcare, employment, and education opportunities for those affected. Additionally, the scheme would provide much-needed accessible temporary accommodation in the city where there is a shortage of adapted facilities.”

Officer report

Safety and local impact

A management plan, round-the-clock staffing, security, CCTV, controlled access and house rules were intended to protect residents and neighbours.

“To address these concerns, the application is accompanied by a detailed Management Plan, which is central to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of nearby residents. The Plan sets a strict occupancy limit of 21 residents, which would not be exceeded. The building would be staffed and managed around the clock by the City Council, with a dedicated team comprising 5 Accommodation Support Workers, a cook, a Homeless Lead Officer, and a Team Leader operating on a 24/7 rota.”

“As part of this agreement, residents must adhere to a set of house rules covering cleanliness, respectful behaviour, and positive conduct within the community. Any breach of these rules will result in the immediate withdrawal of the accommodation offer and eviction without notice.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

There was one supporting representation and 49 objections, while Environmental Health, Highways, Homelessness Services and police raised no objection or supported the proposal.

“- The site is also poorly located for access to essential support services, such as mental health care, job training, and substance abuse programs, which are crucial for helping homeless individuals rebuild their lives. It is considered that there are better alternative locations.”

“Homelessness Services – Confirm that the proposed development is supported. The intention is for the site to be managed and operated by MCC's Homelessness Service.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent supported the scheme, describing its accessibility, management, security and arrangements for responding to neighbours’ concerns.

Members’ discussion

Councillors Gartside and Kilpatrick welcomed or supported the application and asked about the vacant building and its previous care home operator.

“Councillor Gartside said that she welcomed the application and the steps taken by the applicant to address the concerns raised by local residents. She further welcomed the bringing back into use of a vacant property and enquired how long the property had been empty.”

“Councillor Kilpatrick said that he would be supporting the application. He noted that the premises had previously operated as a Care Home and asked what had happened to that provider and were they operating elsewhere.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Shaukat Ali moved approval and Councillor Rawson seconded the motion.

“Councillor Shaukat Ali moved the officer’s recommendation to Approve the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

“The Committee resolved to Approve the application subject to conditions set out within the report.”

Minutes