Student accommodation use at Land Bounded By Upper Brook Street, Manchester
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Manchester Planning Committee on 20 Nov 2025.
What was proposed
The application sought to vary condition 30 so that up to 35% of student rooms could be used outside term time for specified students.
“Proposal Variation to condition 30 (Use of Building) attached to planning permission 137399/FO/2023 to allow use of building outside of term time…”
“Planning condition 30 aimed to restrict the use of the building outside term time. The applicant seeks permission to use 258 rooms (35%), during non-term time. The minimum tenancy would be one week. It would be used by students attending summer schools, undertaking internships or placements, or transitioning between tenancies only.”
Officer report
The site and approved scheme
The site forms part of a wider masterplan and already has permission for science, student accommodation and public realm development.
“Planning permission was granted in November 2024, for a 6 to 9 storey building for Sci-Tech use and a 9 to 23 storey building for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) with public realm.”
“The site is to the south of the former Williams site (subject to planning permission 137401/FO/2023 for a Sci Tech and PBSA Buildings granted in November 2024). Both sites form part of a larger masterplan to bring forward a comprehensive development in this area.”
Officer report
Earlier committee history
The application had previously been deferred because members were minded to refuse over possible negative effects on residential amenity.
“143469/JO/2025 - Land Bounded By Upper Brook Street, Cottenham Street & Kincardine Road, Manchester, M13 9TD - Ardwick Ward…”
“The application had appeared at the previous Planning Committee meeting in October and had been deferred as members were minded to refuse due the possible negative impact on residential amenity.”
Minutes
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval, finding that the limited occupancy, management arrangements and existing controls would prevent unduly harmful impacts.
“The maximum occupancy of 35%, or 258 bedrooms, is not considered to be excessive and represents a worst-case scenario. The bespoke arrangements proposed alongside the agreed operational and management arrangements, would help to minimise impacts. The short travel distances to teaching accommodation and amenities, which is away from the residential area separated by a major road, would ensure that students would be away from the site whilst learning would take place.”
“It is recommended that a bespoke non term time management plan is agreed prior to first use and that there are clear arrangements in place for monitoring and reviewing its effectiveness.”
Officer report
Responses to the application
Nine objections and a ward councillor’s objection raised concerns about noise, traffic, parking, community cohesion, need and precedent, while highways and environmental health had no objections.
“- Noise and Disturbance to Local Residents - While the applicant claims impacts will be minimal, summer short-term occupancies are more transient in nature, often with higher turnover and less community integration.”
“These traffic and parking issues have been continually raised as core community concerns about how the proposal will worsen a critical situation, during construction and once operational. Despite extensive pressure from councillors, these fundamental issues remain unresolved.”
Officer report
Who spoke
No objector attended, the applicant’s agent had nothing to add, and the planning officer had nothing to add to the written report.
What members discussed
Councillor Andrews said there were no grounds to refuse and moved the officer’s recommendation, which Councillor Hassan seconded.
“The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions or make comments.”
“Councillor Andrews noted that there were no grounds available to the Committee in order for them to refuse the application and moved the officer’s recommendation.”
Minutes
The committee’s decision
The committee resolved to be minded to approve the application, subject to signing a section 106 agreement and the stated conditions.
“The Committee resolved to be Minded to Approve for the application for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the officer report, subject to the signing of section 106 agreement.”
Minutes
Sources
- Manchester Planning Committee minutes, 20 November 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Manchester's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Manchester Planning Committee
- Council
- Manchester
- Date
- Thursday 20 November 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Manchester committee decisions →
This committee's year
34 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.