Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL REPORT FOR RESOLUTION

Committee PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS

Date 27 October 2011

Subject 096929/FO/2011/C1 Erection of 12 storey building comprising office accommodation (Class B1 (floors 1 to 11) , ground floor Class A1 (Shop) Use and / or Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) Use and / or Class A3 (Restaurant and Cafe) Use, and /or Car /Motorbike Showroom (Sui Generis) Use, car (60 spaces) and cycle (53 spaces) parking over 2 basement levels along with creation of a new area of public open space adjoining St Mary's Church, public realm improvements and associated works to Brazennose Street and Lincoln Square and highway works to Mulberry Street following demolition of existing building and associated structures.

096932 - CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT for demolition of existing building and associated structures

Location Brazennose House, Lincoln Square, Manchester, M2 5ZZ,

Applicant The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd, C/o Agent

Agent Mr John Cooper, Drivers Jonas Deloitte, 2 Hardman Street, Manchester, M3 3HF

Report of HEAD OF PLANNING

Purpose of report

Top describe the above application for planning permission, the issues involved and to put forward recommendations.

Recommendation

The Head of Planning recommends that the Committee :

(a) APPROVE planning application 096929/FO/2011/C1 for the reasons set out in this report and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 6.1 of this report ; and

(b) APPROVE planning application 096932/CC/2011/C1 for the reasons set out in this report and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 6.2 of this report ;

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

Financial Consequences for the Revenue Budget

None

Financial Consequences for the Capital Budget

None

Contact Officer(s)

Angela Leckie 0161 234 4651 [email protected] Dave Roscoe 0161 234 4567 [email protected]

Background Documents

Planning application documents for 096929 and 096932 Planning Policy Statements :1, 5, 6, 22 Planning Policy Guidance Notes: 13, 16, 24 North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) to 2021. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for Manchester Guide to Development in Manchester Supplementary Planning Document and Planning Guidance (April 2007)

Responses of:

Contaminated Land Section Greater Manchester Police English Heritage Head of Environmental Health Neighbourhood Services (Head of Highway Services) Transport for Greater Manchester Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit Greater Manchester Ecology Unit

Submitted Documents

In addition to the planning application forms, certificates, notices and plans, the following documents have been submitted in support of the planning application:

Design and Access Statement; Supporting Planning Statement; Regeneration Statement; PPS5 Statement; Statement of Community Consultation; Acoustic Report; Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 Geo-Technical and Geo-Environmental Desk Top Study; Ecology Assessment; Environmental Standards Statement; Travel Plan Framework; Sustainability Appraisal; Waste Strategy; Archaeological Assessment; Transport Statement; Sunlight and Daylight Assessment; TV Reception Survey; Ventilation Strategy; Aboricultural Implications Assessment; Pre-Planning Construction Report; Pre-Planning Construction Risk Report.

Publicity and Third Party Consultations: The proposals have been advertised in the Manchester Evening News and site notices have been erected throughout the site as the application is a major development, affecting a conservation area, the setting of listed buildings, affects a public right of way and is a public interest development.

Notification letters were sent to the following addresses:

38 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE,12 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6JP, 17 Mulberry Street, Manchester, M2 6LN, 4 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6JP,Fifth Floor, Lincoln House, 1 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5EL Ground Floor, Cotton House, 12 - 18 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HS 22 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HX, 44 - 46 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5EB, 40 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5EB, 42 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5EB, 6 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6JP, 40 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE, Fourth Floor, 1 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 6LH Third Floor, 1 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 6LH, Flat 3, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, Fourth Level, Heron House, 11 - 12 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 5HD, Second Floor, 1 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 3FU Basement 21 To 23, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5ZZ, Basement 28 And 29, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5ZZ, Basement 41 To 48, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5ZZ, Basement 61 To 65, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5ZZ, 19 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, 50 - 52 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5EA, First Floor, Centurion House, 129 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3WR, Eleventh Floor, Centurion House, 129 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3WR, Sub Basement, Trinity Court, 16 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6JR,Ground Floor Unit 1, Trinity Court, 16 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6HY, Second Floor, 34 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE,Third Floor, 34 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE, 36 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE, First Floor, 42 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE Fourth Floor, 42 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE, Seventh Floor, St Johns House, 2 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5JB, First Floor, Cotton House, 12 - 18 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HS, Second Floor, Queens House, 32 - 34 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HT,34 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 Centurion House, 129 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3WR, Heron House, 11 - 12 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 5HD, Lincoln House, 1 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5FJ, Trinity Court, 16 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6HY 1 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 3FU, Cotton House, 12 - 18 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HS, 42 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5ZZ Queens House, 32 - 34 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HT, 123 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 2BY, 28 - 30 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6HQ Wings Restaurant, 1 Lincoln Square, Manchester, M2 5LN Fourth Floor, Lincoln House, 1 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5FJ Third Floor, 42 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE West Block First Floor, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5AZ, East Block Ground Floor Kiosk 2, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BH, East Block Ground Floor Kiosk 1, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, Kelly Temp Services Ltd, 125 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 2BY, Fourth Floor East, James Greaves & Co, Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, West Block Fifth Floor, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5AZ, Centre Block Fifth Floor, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP Centre Block Seventh Floor, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, West Block Ground Floor Kiosk 4, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5AS, West Block Ground Floor, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5AZ, West Block Ground Floor Kiosk 3, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5AZ Sub Basement, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP Third Floor, 2 Ridgefield, Manchester, M2 6EQ, Ground Floor Unit 2, Trinity Court, 16 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6HY,East Block Third Floor, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, Left, 133 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3RW, Right, 133 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3RW, Basement And Ground Floor, 44 - 46 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE, Occupants of John Dalton House, 121 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 2AB, Fifth Floor Managers Office, John Dalton House, 121 Deansgate, Manchester, Queens House, 32 - 34 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HT,Ground Floor, Queens House, Occupants of Commercial Union House, 2 - 10 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 6LW, Level 2, Heron House, 11 - 12 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 5HD, Basement, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5ZZ Sixth Floor, Queens House, 32 - 34 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HT, Sixth Floor To Ninth Floor, Lincoln House, 1 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5FJ,Fifth Floor, Queens House, 32 - 34 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HT,Third Floor And Fourth Floor, Queens House, 32 - 34 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5HT, Heron House, Albert Square, Manchester, M2 5HDBrazennose House, 9 - 21 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP James Greaves & Co, Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP John Dalton House, 121 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 2AB, 125 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 2BY,133 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3RW St Johns House, 2 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5JB, 28 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5LF,Alexandra Buildings, 28 Queen Street, Manchester, M2 5LF 14 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6JP,Ridgefield House, 14 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6JR,Trinity House, 16 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6JR,25 - 29 Lloyd Street, Manchester, M2 5LF,Flat B, 44 - 46 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE,Heron House, 47 Lloyd Street, Manchester, M2 5LE Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 Level 1, Heron House, 11 - 12 Albert Square, Manchester, M2 5HD Flat C, 44 - 46 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE, Flat A, 44 - 46 John Dalton Street, Manchester, M2 6LE, Flat 2, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, Flat 4, Brazennose House, 9 - 27 Brazennose Street, Manchester, M2 5BP, Suite 11b Pt 11th Flr, Centurion House, 129 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3WR, Suite 11a Pt 11th Flr, Centurion House, 129 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3WR, Reverend Canon Clinch, St Mary’s Presbytery, 17 Mulberry Street, Manchester, M2 6LN.

Wards affected

City Centre Ward

Implications for:

Anti-poverty Equal Opportunities Environment Employment No Yes Yes Yes

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.1 The proposal relates to a 0.2 hectare site bounded by Brazennose Street, and on 3 sides by Mulberry Street. The site is currently occupied by a building known as Brazennose House, an 8 storey office building with ground floor retail space and basement car parking and includes. Lincoln Square, a pedestrianised square, lying immediately to the south of Brazennose House. The site is also close to the civic centre of the City Centre around Albert Square.

1.2 Brazennose House was constructed in 1964 and was one of several purpose- built commercial buildings to be constructed in the area at this time.

1.3 The building is not listed but lies within the Albert Square Conservation Area and the Grade II St Mary’s Church lies immediately to the north of the site, at the eastern end and directly adjacent to Brazennose House’s existing basement car park. The Albert Square Conservation Area was designated in 1985, and contains a mixture of uses, ages and types of building including buildings with a civic character and an imposing scale notably the Grade I Listed Town Hall and Grade II* Town Hall Extension as well as large footplate commercial buildings such as Heron House and 2-10 Albert Square. The Grade I Listed Albert Memorial and 5 Grade II Listed structures / statues are located in Albert Square and the Grade II Listed Abraham Lincoln Statue is located in Lincoln Square.

1.4 St Mary’s Church, also known as ‘The Hidden Gem’, occupies the north eastern part of Mulberry Street.

1.5 The area in the immediate vicinity of application site has a varying scale of buildings from 3 to 13 storeys. Brazennose Street and Lincoln Square varies considerably in character with a mixture of building ages, architectural styles and materials. There are a number of taller buildings (both new and old) in the surrounding area, increasing the scale of the built environment including Centurian House (14 storeys) and Lincoln House (10 storeys). Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

1.6 The urban grain in the immediate context of Brazennose House is inconsistent, with varying block sizes. The context is punctuated by several large stand alone buildings. In contrast the city block on the south side of Lincoln Square (fronting Queen Street) is made up of buildings of varying ages in a terrace.

1.7 In terms of architectural character, there is no consistency within the immediate area ; Heron House and 2-10 Albert Square are large red brick buildings with slate mansards typical of the 1980’s, the existing Brazennose House is a typical 1960’s building with extensive use of a concrete frame and cladding; Lincoln House and Centurian House are large, bold buildings, featuring extensive use of glass and concrete and brick cladding respectively with inset windows. Buildings on Queen Street present a variety of styles, mostly from the 70’s and 80’s, utilising red brick, render, concrete and glass.

1.8 The predominant land use in this part of the City Centre is a mix of commercial, office and shop uses.

1.9 The site is strategically located on Brazennose Street, which provides a direct pedestrianised connection between two of the principle regeneration focuses in Manchester City Centre; Spinningfields which in recent years has become established as a premium financial and professional services destination set within world class architecture and public realm; and Albert Square and Manchester’s Civic Quarter which is currently benefitting from significant levels of investment in the form of a number of City Council capital projects which will see transformational change to the Town Hall Complex, Central Library and St Peter’s Square.

1.10 Brazennose House, comprises around 8,000 sq meters (net) of offices, retail space and ancillary basement parking. The building is now mostly vacant but was previously occupied by a variety of small office occupiers and ground floor retail outlets. Currently only 4% of the office space within the building is occupied and there are still a variety of small retail outlets at ground floor. All current occupiers are on short-term leases and the site is therefore considered to be ‘available’ for redevelopment.

1.11 Vehicular access to Brazennose House is from John Dalton Street to the north. and then via Ridgeway and Mulberry Street. Mulberry Street is currently used for servicing, loading and unloading by existing tenants of Brazennose House and adjacent occupiers.

1.12 Mulberry Street’s main function has become as a service route for premises mostly backing onto it. The public realm and landscaping is limited and of poor quality which further exacerbates this problem. As a consequence the area has an uninviting and unpleasant urban environment which has a detrimental impact on the setting of St Mary’s Church. St Mary’s Church has the potential to make a much fuller contribution to the public realm in the area adjacent to the application site. The current contribution of the Church is limited as it is partially concealed from Brazennose Street and Lincoln Square by the current form of Brazennose House. Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALS

2.1 The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a 12 storey building covering almost the entire site with the top 2 storeys; recessed to create a landscaped roof terrace. The building would comprise Grade A office accommodation on the upper floors, ground floor/ mezzanine retail and restaurant uses and car park (60 spaces) and cycle parking (53 spaces) over 2 basement levels along with associated landscaping and public realm works. The roof level would contain the lift overruns, risers and full height plant enclosure contained by a continuous screen. Extensive areas would be set aside for tenant plant.

2.2 The building would be constructed in a mixture of glazing and natural stone cladding with a colour and texture similar to Portland Stone.

2.3 The proposed development would also include a significant amount of new and improved public realm. The public realm proposals would comprise a co- ordinated approach to the following main elements:

• Enhancements to Lincoln Square; • Creation of a new piazza adjoining St Mary’s Church; • Improvements to Brazennose Street and Mulberry Street including the pedestrianisation of a portion of Mulberry Street.

2.4 It is hoped that an artwork would be incorporated into the landscaping of the piazza which relates to the Church and its important place in the history of the City. This would be the subject of a separate planning application.

2.5 On Lincoln Square and the Piazza the strategy is to utilise a mix of grey granite pavers and reconstituted benches and planters with natural cobble highlights.

2.6 The tree line of Brazennose Street would be rationalised so that there is a consistent line of trees. Ten trees are to be removed and nine new trees would be provided as replacements.

2.7 Servicing to the office accommodation would be carried out from a new loading bay at the rear of the building access from Mulberry Street. The retail units would be serviced from a bespoke service accesses on Mulberry Street.

2.8 It is anticipated that the proposed development would achieve a BREEAM rating of very good to excellent.

2.9 Land Interest - The City Council has a land ownership interest in the site as the site edged red includes part of the existing footways, which form part of the highway. Members are reminded that in determining these applications they are discharging their responsibility as Local Planning Authority and must disregard the City Council’s land ownership interest.

3.0 CONSULTATIONS Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

3.1 Local residents and Businesses - One letter of objection has been received in relation to both applications from an adjacent building occupier. The grounds of objection were as follows:

Whilst recognizing the advantages of improving the attractiveness of Lincoln Square, concerns are raised about the anticipated noise levels during demolition and the reconstruction process

3.2 Manchester Conservation Areas and Historic Buildings Panel - The Panel felt that the proposed building, while being virtually double the height of the existing building, has been designed and described to convey a different impression. The Panel felt it would be fairer and more helpful if, in future, building heights were expressed in terms of metres rather than number of storeys as for example in this case the 1960’s storey height of some 3m is being compared with the current day norm of 4mtrs or more.

The Panel thought the proposed building would appear high in reality, contrary to the impression conveyed by the drawings, and would tower over adjacent buildings. At present, the buildings around Lincoln Square have a reasonable relationship with one another in terms of building heights, all of them sitting reasonably well with the existing Brazennose House and the two buildings fronting Albert Square. The Panel felt that if this proposal is approved, the height of the new building will unbalance Lincoln Square as a result of its height/floorspace ratio.

The Panel felt that the existing building contributes to the conservation area because it is understated and proportionate to its surroundings –and doesn’t dominate the square.

The proposed new building, on the other hand, would be extremely prominent when seen from Albert Square and would affect the setting of the Albert Memorial. The Panel felt that, contrary to the impression given by one of the submitted artist’s impressions, the proposed building would in reality tower over the building fronting Albert Square and the memorial and have an adverse effect on the city’s most important public space.

The Panel hoped that any new building erected in this area would have either a positive or a neutral effect on the area – preferably the former.

The Panel felt that views from the Town Hall especially, as a public building, are as important as views from ground level, and that the view of this part of the conservation area from the Town Hall would be affected by this proposal.

The Panel believed that building heights in this conservation area should not exceed that of Lincoln House and felt that agreeing to an increase in building heights in this part of the city would be a huge step to take, and would set a dangerous precedent.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 The Panel were also concerned about the effect of this proposal on Manchester’s skyline, which is an intricate one, formed of many interesting shapes and details. It would emphasise the size of the single block rather than, as existing, has a neutral impact on the conservation area.

The Panel were opposed to the idea of planting trees on the roof of the proposed building, as it would then present an odd view from the Town Hall of trees apparently hovering in mid air and would appear as an alien feature.

The Panel expressed concern that Mulberry Street, which runs behind Brazennose House, would be significantly narrowed because of the proposed building’s greater width.

The Panel felt that the loss of two underpass spaces, which provide interesting views from Brazennose Street to Mulberry Street and vice versa, and which help to create a ‘sequence of viewing experience’ along Brazennose Street, will have a negative effect on the conservation area. These spaces also play an important part in the high-quality network of narrow, pedestrian passageways through which the public can walk from Brazennose Street to St.Ann’s Square while avoiding the busy main thoroughfares. The Council had put a lot of effort into establishing these through-routes and they should not be lost.

The Panel felt that the loss of the pedestrian underpasses in the existing building, through which the church is visible from Lincoln Square, would have a negative impact on the conservation area in addition to that created by their detachment from the system of pedestrian walkways. The Panel felt that something could have been made of these underpasses in the new proposal.

With regard to the ‘Hidden Gem,’ the Panel noted that if this proposal is approved, the church will no longer merit its well-known name. The Panel noted the fact that the proposal will provide more space but this will be of little practical townscape value in front of the church.

The Panel felt this proposal was, overall, a poor example of commercial architecture that lacks quality, is ill considered and is totally inappropriate for this conservation area.

The Panel were also concerned that Mulberry Street may not be the most attractive or active street but this application worsens this situation in part due to the narrowing but also by effectively making it solely a service use without any of the existing ground floor active uses wrapping around onto it, and the loss of pedestrian activities including as part of the cross-city routes.

In addition the Panel felt that the ground floor uses are poorly located. The active restaurant use should front the square and allow the use to spill out and animate the square and not the proposed confined and overshadowed space created at one end by the Hidden Gem which would also heighten the potential for noise disturbance / conflict between the church and proposed uses.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 3.3 English Heritage – Have no objection in principle to the demolition of Brazennose House but have concerns about the proposed replacement building and its impact and have recommended appropriate amendments to the design. The reasons for their concern are as follows:

There is a need to ensure that the new development avoids any conflict with the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the Grade II Listed St Mary’s Church and that the City Council should be confident that the replacement building will make a positive contribution to the conservation area in terms of its scale, height massing, alignment, materials and use.

That any substantial increase in the scale of development on this site requires a robust design justification, in particular to moderate and mitigate its evident impact on Lincoln Square, the setting of the church and its contribution to the backcloth of Albert Square.

The proposal presents no real analysis of the positive values of the existing building or its (possibly limited) contribution to the conservation area which is important as a comparative measure of the impact of the replacement building on the area and should provide a comparative measure of the impact of the replacement building on the area and provide design parameters for the new building and demonstrate how it minimises conflict with the existing townscape.

The City Council should be confident, that the enhancement of views of the church will sufficiently mitigate the diminished proportions of Mulberry Street and the consequent impact on the setting of the church, the closure of other vistas and the loss of permeability.

The City Council should be confident that that the projection of the building into Lincoln Square and the consequent increased proportions of the building can be satisfactorily accommodated without compromising the street edges or key views from Albert Square.

The increase height and mass of the building is of concern and this needs to be moderated by the clarity of expression, quality and cohesion of the key elevations particularly in terms of the proposed street-level, middle section and roof level parapet which is considered to be important in terms minimising the apparent mass of the building and reduce the domination of the enclosing group, including the church.

That the bold scale of the building needs to be mitigated by careful detailing of the elevational materials (including piers and glazing) as well as any accommodation for signage at the lower levels.

3.4 Head of Regulatory and Enforcement Services (Environmental Health) – Has recommended a condition relating to the need to carry out a full site investigation in respect of potential contaminated land issues and to submit details of appropriate remedial measures.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 3.5 Head of Regulatory and Enforcement Services – (Street Management and Enforcement) -Has no objections but has recommended conditions in relation to the acoustic insulation of the building and any associated plant and equipment, fume extraction, hours of operation, delivery times and the storage and disposal of refuse.

3.6 The Head of Neighbourhood Services (Highway Services) - Has no objections but states that the developer will have to enter into a Section 278 agreement regarding the improvement works on the public highway including adjustment of the existing Traffic Regulation Orders on Mulberry Street. They state that the detailed design is especially important as Highways are looking for the ‘shared surface area’ to the front of the church to be sufficiently well designed to prevent any public concerns being raised in relation to pedestrian movements across the area.

3.7 Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Have commented that there is a requirement that works are scheduled to allow the any black redstarts to complete the breeding and fledging of young. They welcome the proposals to provide nesting boxes and request that this is a condition of any consent granted.

3.8 Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – Accept the findings of the submitted Desk Based Assessment that the construction of Brazennose House in the 1960’s will have removed any archaeological deposits. They confirm that Brazennose House itself lacks any archaeological significance and as such that there will no need for an historic building survey.

3.9 Greater Manchester Police (Design for Security) – Have no objections subject to the recommendations of the Crime Impact Assessment being implemented as part of the proposed scheme.

3.10 Transport for Greater Manchester – Support the use of this site for a high density office development as it would maximise the benefits of the site’s excellent public transport accessibility and access to city centre facilities which will help to contribute towards sustainable development by reducing the need to travel. However they have made comments on the Framework Travel Plan and the fairly generic measures that it contains in terms of promoting sustainable travel modes. They have recommended that a condition is attached to any consent granted that requires further development of the Travel Plan prior to the development being occupied.

4.0 ISSUES

Relevant National Policy

4.1 Planning Policy Statement No. 1 : Creating Sustainable Communities - PPS1 encourages the promotion of urban and rural regeneration to improve the well being of communities, improve facilities, promote high quality and safe development and create new opportunities for the people living in those communities. By promoting mixed use developments that create linkages Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 between different uses and create more vibrant places the scheme would be consistent with PPS1.

4.2 Planning Policy Statement 5 :Planning for the Historic Environment - sets outs the Government’s overarching aims in relation to the historic environment. Assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations.

Local Planning Authorities should take into account the desirability of new developments making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing, alignment, material and use. It is considered that the proposed scheme has been designed to reflect the historic context and setting of adjacent listed buildings and structures in the vicinity of the application site and those beyond in context with which the development would be viewed. This includes a clear definition of a bottom, middle and top to the scheme and the setting back of the building to improve views of the Grade II Listed St Mary’s Church. The materials have also been chosen to complement the context of the buildings. It is considered that the overall impact of the proposed development would be positive and therefore it is considered that the proposal complies with guidance contained within PPS5. S 74 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 requires members to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the area when considering this proposal. The key issue with regard to the conservation area consent application is whether in view of the fact that Brazennose House lies within the Albert Square Conservation Area, a case can be made to justify its demolition and that the new development would enhance or preserve the conservation area’s character.

4.3 Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6): Planning for Town Centres - PPS6 is firmly based on the principles of sustainable development and the need to sustain and enhance the role of City Centres for the benefit of all. Key issues include the need to plan for growth and growing City Centres, to tackle exclusion by ensuring access for all to a wide range of everyday goods and services and to promote sustainable patterns of development and less reliance on the car. The redevelopment of this site within the heart of the conurbation, providing some facilities that would be available to the general public in a highly accessible location would be consistent with PPS6.

4.4 Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG13): Transport- PPG13 Advocates minimising the need to use the private car and strongly promotes public transport, walking and cycling as alternatives to the private car. It states that by shaping the pattern of development and influencing the location, scale, density, design and mix of land uses, planning can help to reduce the need to travel, reduce the length of journeys and make it safer and easier for people to access jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling. The development is in accordance with PPG13, being in a highly sustainable location.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 4.5 Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG16) Archaeology and Planning - The study in support of the application identifies levels of development on the site in both the 19th and 20th centuries, that due to the extent of this any below ground remains have been destroyed.

4.6 Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22): Renewable Energy - One of the key principles contained within PPS22 is that development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures. The scheme would incorporate significant energy saving strategies to limited use of energy, is assessed as achieving a very good to excellent Breeam rating , and the possibility of solar hot water collectors is being explored.

In view of the above it is considered that the proposed scheme complies with PPS22.

4.7 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24): Planning and Noise - PPG24 outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which will generate noise, introduces the concept of noise exposure categories for residential development, encouraging their use and recommending appropriate levels for exposure to different sources of noise and advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise. For reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the development proposed scheme complies with PPG24.

Relevant Regional Policy

4.8 The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for North West England - The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for North West England was adopted in September 2008 and provides a framework for development and investment in the region over the next fifteen to twenty years. The relevant policies in the RSS to this proposal are as follows:

Policy DP2 - Promote Sustainable Communities

The scheme would aim to meet the diverse needs of existing and future users and visitors of the City Centre, promote community cohesion and equality and diversity, be sensitive to the environment and contribute to a high quality of life.

Policy DP3 - Promote Sustainable Economic Development

The scheme would contribute to sustainable economic growth.

Policy DP4 - Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure

The scheme would be consistent with the regional and sub-regional spatial frameworks (Chapter 5) and sub-regional policies (Chapter 10- 13 (10 being relevant to Manchester), by:

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 building upon existing concentrations of activities and existing infrastructure not requiring major investment in new infrastructure.

The development would accord with the following sequential approach:

First, using previously developed land within settlements; Second, using other suitable infill opportunities within settlements; and Third, the development of other land where this is well located in relation to housing, jobs and other services and infrastructure and which complies with the other principles in DP1-9.

Policy DP5 - Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel, and Increase Accessibility.

The scheme would be located so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. It would be located in an urban area which has a strategic network where public transport is well provided. It would be genuinely accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

Policy DP7 - Promote Environmental Quality

Which states that environmental quality (including air, coastal and inland waters) should be protected and enhanced, including by: • Understanding and respecting the character and distinctiveness of places and landscapes; • The protection and enhancement of the historic environment; • Promoting good design in new development and ensuring that development respects its setting taking into account relevant design requirements • Reclaiming derelict land; • Maximising opportunity's for the regeneration of derelict or dilapidated areas;

MCR1 and MCR2 - are the key sub-regional policies that relate to the site. The proposals are generally in accordance with the policy framework set out in these policies.

For the reasons outlined below, it is considered that the development is consistent with these policies.

4.9 Environmental Impact Assessment – The proposal does not fall within Schedules 1 or 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999..

This planning application was the subject of a pre-application Screening Opinion for an Environmental Assessment. The Screening Opinion concluded that as the scale of the development is appropriate for a City Centre context, that it would reuse a previously developed site, allow greater use of public transport, would improve conditions for pedestrians, would assist regeneration of the City, is unlikely to result in significant or unusual adverse impact for local residents, that Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 the impact of the development would not have more than a local impact and would support the City’s objectives of making the City Centre a better place to live, shop, invest, and visit and that as such the scheme is not likely to have harmful environmental effects.

In the light of guidance contained within Circular 2/99, it is therefore considered that an Environmental Assessment is not required in this instance.

Relevant Local Policies

4.10 Unitary Development Plan -The following policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester (UDP) are of relevance to these applications :

R1.1 Regeneration - which encourages regeneration within the City Centre.

I1.6 `Employment and Economic Development’ - retention of jobs and maximisation of opportunities for the generation of new employment - which encourages the location of new business developments on sites where they will contribute to urban regeneration.

I 1.10 ‘Employment and Economic Development’ (retention of jobs and maximisation of opportunities for the generation of new employment)

I2.1 ‘Employment and Economic Development’ (ensuring that the people of Manchester benefit from the growth of the City’s economy) – which seeks to ensure that all new commercial and industrial development is fully accessible by all forms of transport and in particular is adequately served by public transport.

I3.1 Employment and Economic Development’(ensuring that economic development contributes to improving the quality of the City’s overall environment) - which promotes a good standard of design and where appropriate suitable landscaping treatment in new commercial developments.

T2.4 Transport - Which seeks to reduce demand for parking by making other forms of public transport available near to developments.

T3.1 Transport – which requires the needs of pedestrians and cyclists to be considered in the design of new developments.

T3.6 Transport – which promotes cycling within the City Centre

T3.7 Transport – which encourages the provision of cycle parking

S1.1 Shopping - which seeks to work in partnership with the private sector to improve the environment for shoppers and pedestrians.

E1.5 Energy Conservation - which encourages high standards of energy efficiency in new development. Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

E2.3 Safeguarding the City’s Environment – which states that the Council will protect important wildlife.

E2.4 Safeguarding the City’s Environment – which states that the Council will take fully into account the impact of development proposals upon wildlife.

E2.5 ‘Enhancing the City’s Environment’ – Which promotes improvements to conditions for pedestrians and the upgrading of public open spaces and squares.

E2.6 Safeguarding the City’s Environment – Which states that wherever possible the loss of existing trees will be prevented.

E2.7 Safeguarding the City’s Environment – which states that the Council will ensure that buildings and areas of special architectural interest are retained, maintained and where necessary restored.

E3.5 'Secure Environment' - which encourages creating safer environments for people living in and using the city.

RC3 Mixed Uses - which encourages compatible mixed uses within the City Centre;

RC 4 Environment – which encourages development to make a positive contribution in Conservation Areas within the City Centre .

DC9.1 New Commercial and Industrial Development - Access for Disabled People - Which requires development involving the erection of new buildings to meet high standards of accessibility.

DC10 'Food and Drink' Uses - which supports the provision of developments involving the sale of food or drink within the City Centre provided that they would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

DC14 (Shop Fronts and Related Signs ) - which states that shopfronts should be in keeping with the character of the building and should allow full access for disabled people

DC18.1 Conservation Areas -advises that the Council will give particularly careful consideration to proposals within conservation areas. It states that the Council will seek to preserve and enhance the character of its designated conservation areas by carefully considering the relationship of new structures to neighbouring buildings and spaces, the effect of major changes to the appearance of existing buildings, and the desirability of retaining existing features. Consent to demolish a building in a conservation area will be granted only where it can be shown that it is wholly beyond repair, incapable of reasonably beneficial use, or where its removal or replacement would benefit the character of the area.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 DC19.1 Listed Buildings - which states that the Council will seek to preserve or enhance the setting of listed buildings by appropriate control over the design of new development in their vicinity. DC20 Archaeology - which states that the Council will give particular careful consideration to development proposals which affect sites of archaeological interest.

DC26.1 Development and Noise - which details how the development control process will be used to reduce the impact of noise on people living and working in the City and states that this will include consideration of the impact that development proposals which are likely to be generators of noise will have on amenity.

DC26.5 Development and Noise – which states that the Council will control noise levels by requiring where necessary, high levels of noise insulation in new development as well as noise barriers where this is appropriate

RC20 (Area 24) 'Small Area Proposals' – which states that there is some scope for redevelopment in the area where the main aim is to retain and consolidate existing commercial activity. There is also support for improvements to the visual and pedestrian environment on Civic Squares.

4.11 Guide to Development in Manchester Supplementary Planning Document and Planning Guidance (April 2007) – Part 1 of the SPD sets out the design principles and standards that the City Council expects new development to achieve, i.e. high quality developments that are safe, secure and accessible to all.

4.12 Merits of the Existing Building and its Contribution to the Conservation Area - The building is not listed but the site holds an important position within the Conservation Area, being seen in long and views from a number of nearby streets. Brazennose Street itself is of significance within the Conservation Area as it affords views of the Town Hall.

At 8 storeys, the height of the existing building is generally in keeping with the scale of the existing buildings in the vicinity and in this regard it does not stand out in terms of height and does not have any impact on views from Albert Square. The building line of the existing building into Brazennose Street is generally consistent with the remainder of the street and facilitates a framed view of the Town Hall when viewed from Deansgate. The main footprint of the building is set back from Mulberry Street creating an oblique view of St Mary’s Church which is further compromised by the exposed basement car parking ramp, back of house areas, walled boundary treatment and poor quality public realm detracting from the setting of the church. These factors serve to impact negatively on the street scene and detract from the setting of the Grade II Listed Church.

The presence of a vehicular turning head at the eastern end of Mulberry Street which is often used for unauthorised car parking and loading and unloading for Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 the adjoining retail units compounds the poor impact on the setting of and detracts from the functionality of the church

It is considered that the existing building does not contribute to the character of the Conservation Area and at best could be described as neutral.

4.13 Prospects for the Continued Use of the Building - The applicants state that the existing building is now physically obsolete; exterior facades require maintenance; internal common parts require refurbishment and mechanical and electrical services need complete overhaul or replacement.

The building has 2 separate service cores and entrances, meaning that the office space is split vertically into 3 wings. The fragmented nature of the accommodation restricts the flexibility of the space and tends to reduce its appeal to large occupiers. In addition the building has restrictive floor to ceiling heights and poor insulation.

The building does not meet current environmental policy standards is inefficient and unattractive to modern day occupiers.

Given that the building suffers from inherent design problems (inefficient layout, restrictive floor to ceiling heights and poor insulation) the overall level of investment required to prolong the building’s life and secure an acceptable future rental return is economically un-viable. Therefore it is considered that the refurbishment of Brazennose House is not a feasible option.

4.14 Benefits of the Proposed Redevelopment of the Site/ Design Issues - In terms of making a positive contribution to the area the proposed siting of the building, its scale, height, physical form and architectural detail are important. The design of the proposed building would provide a high quality building on an important site within the City Centre

Whilst not in itself a prominent site, the application site is located in a key position halfway between Deansgate and Albert Square. The proposed building would act as the main façade to Lincoln Square creating a sense of enclosure and reinforcing the spatial boundary around this public space, already established by the height and mass of Centurian House to the west. Looking from Deansgate the new building would act as a marker, denoting the presence of an important public square whilst looking from Albert Square the building would have a more under-stated appearance, being visible from only certain locations within the Square.

The façade concept is a layering of a number of factors: firstly the tripartite principle of adopting a different treatment of the building’s base section, mid section and upper section; secondly the unifying but shifted grid which is applied to all facades’, thirdly, the grouping of floors together to reduce scale and create rhythm in the façade and finally the modelling and fenestration of vertical stone panels spandrels and cills which sit within the grid with the aim of bringing depth and interest to the façade. The design is therefore one Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 which would relate both to the larger scale of the urban context and the more human perception of scale.

The main structural grid, columns , panels’ spandrels and cills would all be natural stone of a colour and texture similar to the Portland Stone buildings in the vicinity of the site.

The proposed building would recognise the vertical orientation of fenestration and decorative elements seen in many important buildings in the surrounding area.

Interest and variation in the façade is created by the regular changes in depth within each 9 meter bay, with some sections of glazing set back at 400mm whilst others would be flush with the panelling.

In spatial terms the proposed building would reinforce the grid structure of the context by establishing a consistent line along Brazennose Street. Between Lincoln House and 2-10 Albert Square and would re-establishes a consistent line along Mulberry Street parallel to its existing neighbours.

In functional terms the building is based around the concept of maximising the clear floorplate on a typical floor by locating the core to one side of the building with structural elements either incorporated into the core or the external façade. Provision has been made for various tenant riser requirements at either end of the main core, ensuring that the office space will be extremely functional, flexible and divisible. The layout of a typical office floor plate and the position of the core offers a high degree of flexibility and adaptability, including the option to split floors in different ways. The high provision of servicing and tenant riser space would mean that a wide range of occupational formats could be accommodated from open-plan to call-centre type operations to individual cellular offices and meeting rooms.

It is considered that the prominence of the site, the existing urban pattern of Lincoln Square, the existing adjacent building of similar height along with the quality of the proposed architecture is such that the design of the building and its overall scale of the proposed building are considered to be appropriate.

4.15 Character of the Proposed Building and its Impact on Conservation Areas and nearby Listed Buildings - The site is in the vicinity of a number of listed buildings, within the Albert Square Conservation Area. In view of this it is necessary to consider the impact that the proposals would have on the character of the conservation areas and the setting of nearby listed buildings.

Manchester Town Hall is an important civic symbol and distinguished work of architecture and as such the impact of any proposals on the setting and views of the building are key considerations when evaluating the merits of development proposals in the surrounding area. Views of the Town Hall looking east along Brazennose Street are therefore of great significance. The proposed building would maintain the overall alignment of the existing Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 streetscape such that the framed view of the Town Hall clock would not be affected.

In terms of views of the proposed building down Brazennose Street which have the potential to impact on the setting of the Town Hall, the Albert Memorial and the character of the conservation area, the proposed new building would be read as a backdrop to the Albert Memorial in much the same way that Chancery Place on Chancery Lane and 82 King Street are currently viewed from different parts of the square and would not therefore affect the significance of the structure or its group value with the buildings at the top of Brazennose Street acting as a buffer between the proposed development and the square, respecting the significance of the square and preserving the character of the area. The entrance to Brazennose Street would still be clearly defined and the vista down the street would remain as existing. It is considered that the proposed development would be read as a marker, signifying a point of interest and encouraging exploration down the street.

Another key viewpoint is from the south eastern side of Lincoln Square at the east end of Queen Street from where the full frontage of the proposed building would be appreciated. The proposed building would, like the existing, provide articulation to Lincoln Square and maintain the alignment of the street such that it would not encroach on the public realm. Whilst the proposed building would be greater in height, the scale would be read in relation to Centurian House and it is considered that this continuation in height would allow for the proposed building to sit comfortably within its context. Overall it is considered that in the context of views across the square the proposal, along with the proposed public realm works, would be beneficial in terms of enhancing the character of the conservation area

The scale of the building would relate closely to the surrounding scale by aligning its main shoulder with the top of Centurian House establishing a consistent building line on 2 sides of Lincoln Square without dominating it.

The western flank of the building would rise above Lincoln House when viewed from Deansgate, giving a visual clue to passers by that it is addressing a point of interest.

The top 2 floors of the building have been set back on the Brazennose Street elevation and have a lightweight façade treatment which would reduce the visual impact on views from Albert Square and create visual interest and a sense of openness at the top of the building. The result of the setback is that the building would have no impact on views from many parts of Albert Square and even where visible would not extend above the irregular datum created by the roofline of the buildings directly onto Albert Square.

The eastern elevation of the proposed building would be cut back and aligned to reveal the complete frontage of St Mary’s Church to passers by on Brazennose Street and as such would greatly enhance its setting and enable the creation of a high quality new piazza complementing the Church’s Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 important Community functions such as weddings and funerals. However the ‘hidden’ quality of the church would be retained by narrowing the street opening towards Brazennose Street.

The proposed building would be seen in views with a number of listed buildings within the adjacent areas. However it is considered that the new building would not have a detrimental impact on the settings of listed buildings within areas adjacent to the site. The proposed building would acknowledge the historic environment and reinforce key characteristics of the conservation area and the historic setting of nearby listed buildings..

In view of the above 4 sections the proposal complies with policies contained in PPS5 as well as Policies I3.1, E2.7, DC14, DC18.1 and DC19.1.

4.16 The Schemes Contribution to Regeneration - Regeneration is an important planning consideration. Brazennose Street is located within the heart of Manchester City Centre and its Central Business District. However there has been no significant investment in this part of the City Centre since the 1980’s and this lack of investment has resulted in the street and Lincoln Square appearing tired and outdated. The street and application site are located within a key location between the Spinningfields and Civic Quarter Regeneration Area and on a broader level provide a key linkages within the City Centre’s pedestrian network effectively linking areas such as the Conference Quarter, First Street, Great Jackson Street and the Corridor.

It is noted that based on current supply, Manchester will not have sufficient Grade A office accommodation to satisfy demand beyond the end of 2011 and as such a need for additional floorspace of this type to satisfy the expansion requirements of existing occupiers, as well as to attract new occupiers to the City has been identified. A demand for more sizable floorplates in larger buildings has also been indentified. Therefore in regeneration terms there is a need for more of the type of accommodation that would be offered in the proposed building to be in the ‘pipeline’

The provision of a high quality building in this location would contribute to the City Council’s objective of continuing to attract national and international occupiers to the City, subsequently enabling the City to compete with other regional centres in the UK as well as on a broader European and International level. The proposed development would enhance Manchester’s competitive offer as a principle destination for inward investment and would create opportunities to attract the organisations and companies that Manchester City Council would consider as being capable of making a significant economic and regenerative contribution to the City.

It is also considered the proposed development would have a catalytic impact on both the sites immediate environment and the surrounding area, acting as a conduit to further investment. The uplift in quality that would result from the construction of the proposed building along with the improvements to the adjacent public realm has the potential to encourage adjacent owners to Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 improve their buildings and to attract further inward investment in the area from external investors.

In addition to the above, the proposed high quality retail units to Brazennose Street would provide active frontages, complementing and extending the City’s retail offer.

In view of the above the proposed development would complement and build upon Manchester City Council’s current and planned regeneration initiatives and as such would be consistent with Policies R1.1, I1.6, I1.10, S1.1, RC3, RC20 (Area 24) and DC10.

4.17 Effects on Local Environment - In assessing the merits of this application, consideration needs to be given to the impact that the proposed building would have on the local environment. It is noted that the only residential accommodation within the area is that associated with the church. Nevertheless occupiers of buildings in the vicinity of the application site which could be affected by the proposed development also need consideration. The site is predominantly surrounded by commercial buildings with St Mary’s Church to the north east of the development. The proposed cutback to the eastern end of the development has been designed so as to make good use of the available daylight and sunlight and to ensure good penetration to St Mary’s Church. The impact on the amenity area to the south and east of the application site would be negligible as there should be no additional permanent overshadowing from the development due to its orientation.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with policy E2.5 contained in the UDP.

4.18 Parking, Servicing and Access - The impact of the proposals in terms of parking provision and impacts on the highway network have been considered in the Transport Statement submitted with the application.

Mulberry Street is a narrow street with double yellow line parking restrictions the length of the street. Notwithstanding the restrictions cars and unattended commercial vehicles often block the street causing problems for other vehicles trying to service occupiers in the vicinity and disrupt religious services and events taking pace at St Mary’s Church.

As part of the proposed development, the turning head to the eastern end of Mulberry Street would be removed and this would reduce the volume of traffic using this section of Mulberry Street. Information submitted in support of the application demonstrates that these changes would not result in any operational or safety issues on the local highway network.

The new loading bay has been designed to accommodate the typical delivery requirements for the site.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 The rationalisation of the access and movement of vehicles around the site particularly in the context of Mulberry Street would provide a solution to identified traffic and highways issues in the area.

Given the location of the application site near to a number of public transport options. It is considered that adequate car and cycle parking would be provided as part of the development.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with policies T2.4, T3.1, T3.6 and T3.7 contained in the UDP.

4.19 Green Travel Plan / Cycling - The developer has stated that they recognise the need to encourage those employed within the development and visitors to travel to work and for business by sustainable transport modes and is committed to the development and implementation of a Travel Plan, that would promote car sharing, cycling, walking, public transport thereby reducing the demand for on-site parking spaces.

Secure on site cycle parking along with showering facilities would be provided within the car parking area.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with policies I1.2, T2.4, T3.1, T3.6 and T3.7 contained in the UDP.

4.20 Sustainability - It is considered that the proposal would be highly sustainable in terms of energy conservation, use of materials and waste minimisation, re- use and recycling and is expected to gain a BREAAM rating of very good to excellent.

It is proposed that an appropriately sized Combined Heat and Power unit in conjunction with a matched adsorption chiller would provide high carbon efficiency through on site power generation and use of waste heat for either heat or cooling. In addition further electrical power would be generated through the use of roof mounted photovoltaic panels which would provide electricity for the building or for sale onto the national grid.

Whilst designed for commercial office use, the high quality of the space and provision of services mean that it could be adapted at some future point for other uses if necessary.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with policies E1.2 and E1.5 contained in the UDP.

4.21 Access - The principle entrance to the building would be level and lifts providing full access to all floors for disabled people would be located within close proximity of this entrance area. Six of the 60 parking spaces would be laid out for disabled people. The allocated spaces would be within easy reach of the lift that serves the basement from the office lobby area.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 In view of the above the proposals are consistent with policies DC9.1 contained in the UDP.

4.22 TV Reception - A TV and Radio reception study has been undertaken that identifies potential shadowing and reflection of signals. A condition that requires further detailed surveys to precisely identify the effect of the proposals and for the developer to undertake appropriate measures to mitigate any effects will be attached to any consent granted.

4.23 Crime and Disorder - It would be expected that an enhanced level of personal security for those using the area would result from this development as a result of the improvements to the level of ground floor activity on the site, the removal of the existing pedestrian tunnels under the building and the improvements to the public realm. Greater Manchester Police have been involved in pre-application discussions on the scheme and have provided a crime impact assessment. Greater Manchester Police have raised no objections to the proposals and it is expected to achieve Secured by Design accreditation. A condition requiring that the development seeks to achieve that accreditation will be attached to any consent granted.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with policies E3.5 contained in the UDP.

4.24 Noise / Impact on Amenity - The potential for noise generation from plant / equipment associated with the buildings will be overcome provided that the development is carried out in accordance with the details on acoustic insulation submitted with the application and a condition requiring that the scheme is carried out in accordance with this will be attached to any consent granted.

In view of the above the proposals would be consistent with policies DC26.1 and DC26.5 contained in the UDP.

4.25 Impact of loss of permeability and the Pedestrian environment -There are currently 2 pedestrian routes in the form of walkways beneath the building providing access to Mulberry Street and John Dalton Street beyond. The current accesses are not fully accessible for disabled people, are uninviting, poorly lit and attract anti-social behaviour thereby detracting from any permeability benefits that exist.

The pedestrian environment on Mulberry Street would be vastly improved by the proposals due to the re-establishment of a consistent building line along the street which will reinforce the linear space. Pedestrian permeability around the site would be enhanced through the removal of uninviting pedestrian tunnels through the building and creation of attractive alternative fully accessible routes around the perimeters of the building which will benefit from active frontages and high quality public realms.

In view of the above the proposals would be consistent with policies E2.5 and E3.5 contained in the UDP. Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

4.26 Amenity and Impact on Public Realm - The existing building provides a neutral contribution to the sense of amenity in the area. The proposal would create greater activity at ground floor level along with a high quality approach to carrying out improvements to the public realm immediately surrounding the site, which would serve to enhance the area's amenity.

Lincoln Square is a small but significant public space which forms part of a network of squares within the City Centre from Hardman Street in the west to St Peter’s Square in the east. No significant public realm works have been carried out in Brazennose Street or Lincoln Square in recent years and improvements are overdue. The hard landscaped area within Lincoln Square is dated, tired and in need of modernisation. The paved areas are also cracked and uneven in places and there is limited street furniture which is relatively sparse and utilitarian. There is very little public space outside St Mary’s Church. In combination these factors serve to discourage people from lingering in the area and as a consequence the street and square’s main purpose has become that of a pedestrian connection to another destination rather than the area being an area of public realm which is a destination in its own right.

As a result of the proposed landscaping scheme Lincoln Square would become a focal point whilst the new piazza would create a welcoming space with a focus on relaxation and quiet contemplation aided by the provision of trees and benches. Combined these improvements would create a positive aspect for the surrounding buildings.

In view of the above the proposals would be consistent with policies I3.1 and E2.5 contained in the UDP.

4.27 Loss of Trees - In terms of the 10 trees to be removed, some of these are currently located too close to Brazennose House and have grown at an unsightly angle. The Arboricultural Implications Assessment submitted with the application confirms that the trees are of low quality. Whilst it is proposed to replant only 9 new trees, these would be a more appropriate species and in more appropriate positions so as to maximise growth and lifespan within the prevailing local microclimate.

It is considered that the reinstatement of trees on the site together with the substantial public realm improvements would make a significant long term improvement to the area and its amenity of the area.

In view of the above the proposals would be consistent with policy E2.6 contained in the UDP.

4.28 Archaeological issues - A Desk Based Archaeological Assessment has been submitted with the application. GMAU there will no need for an historic building survey

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 In view of the above the proposals would be consistent with Policy DC20 contained in the UDP.

4.29 Wildlife Issues - The Ecological Constraints Assessment and Ecological Validation surveys submitted with the application did not warrant any further survey or site specific mitigation. Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have identified the proposed roof terrace as a feature which could provide benefits for black redstarts and recommend that the details of the landscaping are required to consider the specific needs of this species as well as roosting and nesting areas for sparrows. The applicants have investigated the possibility of providing a green roof have confirmed that the terrace area could not be turned into a green roof as the depth of build-up required would make access very difficult from inside to outside and the slab has to be at the same level throughout. It would also be difficult to use the upper roof as a green roof as there is a lot of plant in that location which emits hot vapour from the coolers creating an unsuitable environment. However they have confirmed that it may be possible to look at providing bird boxes or small areas of pebbles / spaces to nest at the roof level and the investigation of this would be a condition of any consent granted.

In view of the above the proposals are considered to be consistent with policies E2.3 and E2.5 contained in the UDP.

4.30 Response to Objectors Comments . - Issues in relation to noise and disturbance during construction will be dealt with under Environmental Health Legislation. It should be noted however that in planning terms there are many potential development sites within the City Centre and that activity associated with development on sites within the City Centre, should subject to compliance with the above, be regarded as an acceptable part of living and working within a vibrant regional centre.

4.31 Response to Manchester Conservation Area and Historic Buildings Panel Comments - The majority of the comments from the Panel have been addressed above. However in terms of the proposed height of the building it is necessary that the proposed building provides a quantum of accommodation with a particular size of floorplate to make the development stack up financially. Whilst the building would clearly be taller than the existing it is felt that the design is appropriate to the context and that any impact needs to be balanced against the positive benefits in regeneration terms.

Whilst there would be an impact on views of from Albert Square and on views of the Albert Memorial it is felt that the impact would not be detrimental to the setting of these.

The changes to Mulberry Street and the establishment of a clear consistent building line along with the improvements to the servicing arrangements in the street are seen as positive factors which would improve the street scene and its legibility resulting in a rationalised and much improved environment on Mulberry Street.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 The narrowing of Mulberry Street onto Brazennose Street would retain the idea of the Church being hidden.

4.32 Response to English Heritage Comments - In terms of any conflict with the character and appearance of the conservation area this has been dealt with above.

In response to the comments about the lack of analysis of the contribution that Brazennose House makes to the Conservation Area. The applicants have provided further commentary on this which concludes that the existing building does not contribute positively to the character of the Conservation Area and at best its contribution could be described as neutral.

Stepping the height of the building would have resulted in moving the core of the proposed building, and therefore the entrance off centre which was not considered an appropriate response to the square or urban legibility. For the reasons detailed above it is considered that the design justification submitted in respect of this application along with the case put forward in respect of the regeneration benefits of the proposals, provides a robust case in support of the merits of the proposed building and as such that its impact on both Lincoln Square and the setting of and key views from Albert Square are considered to be acceptable.

In terms of the concerns about clarity of expression of quality and cohesion of key elevations, the proposed elevation to Brazennose Street has now been amended to incorporate a separate frame for the base section of the façade to clearly define the 2 elements, making the fenestration more overt while maintaining the same language of framing elements to both parts. The transparency of the corner adjacent to the new piazza to the east would be emphasised by the omission of this second frame making the corner appear more open.

In terms of the materials and their detailing it is noted that these will be key factors in mitigating the scale of the building and agreement of these and their detailing would be a condition of any consent granted.

Government advice is that Local Planning Authorities should have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas and the setting of listed buildings and ensure that new buildings fit in with an historic area, rather than stand alone within it. These concerns are also reflected in the City Councils own approved planning policies contained within the Unitary development Plan.

The existing building is not of any high architectural quality or historical significance and has outlived its useful economic use. The site is a key location at the heart of the City Centre, marking the route of a major pedestrian thoroughfare between an important civic route from Albert Square to Deansgate.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 The impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets has been carefully considered during the design evolution

It is felt that the proposed new building is compatible with the character of the Conservation Area in terms of scale, articulation, materiality and use and that an understanding of the character of the Conservation Area and the impact of the proposals on key Listed Buildings has informed the design so as to ensure that its setting and its immediate context would be enhanced whilst preserving the character of the Conservation Area.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed building would have some impact on views from Albert Square it is considered that on balance given the high quality of architecture of the proposed building; the proposed improvements to the public realm and setting of St Mary’s Church along with the regeneration benefits that the proposed scheme would bring, that on balance any marginal impacts would be mitigated.

Third Party Representations

Trowers And Hamlins,

Human Rights Act 1998 considerations – This application needs to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applicants (and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations) have a right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments.

Protocol 1 Article 1, and Article 8 where appropriate, confer(s) a right of respect for a person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Planning has concluded that some rights conferred by these Articles on the applicant(s)/objector(s)/resident(s) and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by the approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 Government advice is that Local Planning Authorities should have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas and the setting of listed buildings and ensure that new buildings fit in with an historic area, rather than stand alone within it. These concerns are also reflected in the City Councils own approved planning policies contained within the Unitary development Plan.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 The existing building is not of any high architectural quality or historical significance and has outlived its useful economic use. The site is a key location at the heart of the City Centre, marking the route of a major pedestrian thoroughfare between an important civic route from Albert Square to Deansgate.

The impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets has been carefully considered during the design evolution

It is felt that the proposed new building is compatible with the character of the Conservation Area in terms of scale, articulation, materiality and use and that an understanding of the character of the Conservation Area and key Listed Buildings has informed the design so as to ensure that its setting and its immediate context would be enhanced whilst preserving the character of the Conservation Area.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed building would have some impact on views from Albert Square it is considered that on balance given the high quality of architecture of the proposed building, the proposed improvements to the public realm and setting of St Mary’s Church along with the regeneration benefits that the proposed scheme would bring, that on balance any marginal impacts would be mitigated.

In regeneration terms, the proposals have the potential to deliver a transformational project that is not only to the benefit to the land within the application site area but also as a catalyst that will initiate the regeneration of the surrounding area. The applicants state that the proposals has the potential to generate up to 188 temporary jobs during the demolition and construction phase and once operational the development would be capable of providing up to 1.225 full time equivalent jobs across a variety of sectors.

There is an excellent fit between this project and policy at national, regional and City Region level and the proposals would fully accord with the strategic aims and aspirations of the City Council.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Head of Planning therefore recommends that the Committee:

6.1 APPROVE planning application 096929/FO/2011/C1 on the basis that the proposal is in accordance with Planning Policy Statement No.1, Planning Policy Statement 5, Planning Policy Statement 6, Planning Policy Guidance 13, Planning Policy Guidance 16, Planning Policy Statement no. 22, Planning Policy Statement no. 23, North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, Guide to Development in Manchester Supplementary Planning Document and Planning Guidance and the City Council's Unitary Development Plan, in particular policies R1.1 (Regeneration), I1.6 (Employment and Economic Development) I 1.10 (Employment and Economic Development), I2.1 (Employment and Economic Development), I3.1 (Employment and Economic Development) T2.4 (Transport), T3.1 (Transport) Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 T3.6 (Transport ) T3.7 (Transport)S1.1 (Shopping), E1.5 (Energy Conservation), E2.3 (Safeguarding the City's Environment), E2.4 (Safeguarding the City's Environment), E2.5 (Enhancing the City's Environment), E2.6 (Safeguarding the City's Environment), E2.7 (Safeguarding the City's Environment), E3.5 (Secure Environment), RC3 (Mixed Uses), RC 4 (Environment), DC9.1 (New Commercial and Industrial Development - Access for Disabled People), DC10 (Food and Drink Uses), DC14 (Shop Fronts and Related Signs), DC18.1 (Conservation Areas), DC19.1 (Listed Buildings), DC20 (Archaeology), DC26.1 (Development and Noise), DC26.5 (Development and Noise), RC20 (Area 24) Small Area Proposals, in that it would contribute to regeneration within the City Centre, contribute to the retention of jobs and maximisation of opportunities for the generation of new employment, ensure that economic development contributes to improving the quality of the City's overall environment, ensure that the people of Manchester benefit from the growth of the City's economy, would be fully accessible by all forms of transport, would promotes a good standard of design and appropriate suitable landscaping treatment, would reduce demand for parking by making other forms of public transport available near to the development, considers the needs of pedestrians and cyclists in the design of the development, would promotes cycling within the City, provides of cycle parking, would improve the environment for shoppers and pedestrians, would achieve high standards of energy efficiency in new development, would take fully into account the impact of development proposals upon wildlife, would improvement conditions for pedestrians and the upgrading of a public square, would replace and improve the layout of trees within a public square, would result in a safer environments for people living in and using the city, would be compatible with the mix of uses within the City Centre; would make a positive contribution in a Conservation Area, would meet high standards of accessibility, would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, would preserve and enhance the character of a designated conservation areas by carefully considering the relationship of the new building to neighbouring buildings and spaces, as it has been shown that the existing building is wholly beyond repair, incapable of reasonably beneficial use, and its replacement would benefit the character of the area, would not have an adverse impact on the setting of listed buildings, would not have an impact on any features of archaeological interest and would result in improvements to the visual and pedestrian environment on a Civic Squares and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise and subject to the conditions detailed below:

6.2 APPROVE conservation area consent application 096932/CC/2011/C1 on the basis that the proposal is in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 5, and the City Council's Unitary Development Plan in particular Policies: E2.7 (Environmental Protection and Improvement - to Safeguard the City's Environment) and DC18.1 (Conservation Areas) in that the proposals would not have an adverse impact on the architectural and historic character of the conservation area

For the reasons set out in this report, and subject to the following conditions and reasons Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011

Conditions

096929

1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority:

(a) 07021 15-01 P001;

(b) 7021 15-01 P008; 7021 15-01 P009; 7021 15-01 P010; 7021 15-01 P011, 7021 15-01 P012; 7021 15-01 P018; 7021 15-01 P020; 7021 15-01 P022; 7021 15-01 P0301;

(c) 7021 15-01 P021; 7021 15-01 P022;7021as amended by 7021 15-01 P025; 15-01 P023; 7021 15-01 P024;

(d) 7021 15-01 P031; 7021 15-01 P032;

(e) 7021 21-01 P001; 7021 21-01 P002; 7021 21-01 P003, 7021 15-01 P020;

(f) 080411/GA/01 Rev A; and

(g) Requirements detailed in Prupim Acoustic Report dated 07-07-11.

Reason - To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Pursuant to policy R1.1, I1.6, I 1.10, I2.1, I3.1, T2.4, T3.1, T3.6, T3.7, S1.1, E1.5, E2.3, E2.4, E2.5, E2.6, E2.7, E3.5, RC3, RC 4, DC9.1, DC10, DC14, DC18.1, DC19.1, DC20, DC26.1, DC26.5 and RC20 (Area 24) Small Area Proposals of the Manchester Unitary Development Plan.

3) The wheels of contractors vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned and the access roads leading to the site swept daily in accordance with a management scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority prior to any works commencing on site.

Reason - In the interest of pedestrian and highway safety, and pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

4) The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating of 'excellent', unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. A post construction review certificate shall Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority before the building hereby approved is first occupied.

Reason: In order to minimise the environmental impact of the development pursuant to policies E1.5 and E1.6 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester and the principles contained in the Guide to Development in Manchester 2 and PPS1.

5) The development hereby approved shall not commence unless and until a Construction Management Plan, including a Site Waste Management Plan and a plan layout showing areas of public highway agreed with the Highway Authority for use in association with the development during construction , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The strategy shall include details on the timing of construction of scaffolding, the lighting and operation of cranes during construction, and a Human Impact Management Plan.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and in the interests of the amenity of the area, pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester and Guide to Development 2 (SPG)

6) a) Before the development hereby approved commences, a report (the Preliminary Risk Assessment) to identify and evaluate all potential sources and impacts of any ground contamination, groundwater contamination and/or ground gas relevant to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The Preliminary Risk Assessment shall conform to City Council's current guidance document (Planning Guidance in Relation to Ground Contamination).

In the event of the Preliminary Risk Assessment identifying risks which in the written opinion of the Local Planning Authority require further investigation, the development shall not commence until a scheme for the investigation of the site and the identification of remediation measures (the Site Investigation Proposal) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

The measures for investigating the site identified in the Site Investigation Proposal shall be carried out, before the development commences and a report prepared outlining what measures, if any, are required to remediate the land (the Site Investigation Report and/or Remediation Strategy) which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

b) When the development commences, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the previously agreed Remediation Strategy and a Completion/Verification Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 In the event that ground contamination, groundwater contamination and/or ground gas, not previously identified, are found to be present on the site at any time before the development is occupied, then development shall cease and/or the development shall not be occupied until, a report outlining what measures, if any, are required to remediate the land (the Revised Remediation Strategy) is submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the Revised Remediation Strategy, which shall take precedence over any Remediation Strategy or earlier Revised Remediation Strategy.

Reason - To ensure that the presence of or the potential for any contaminated land and/or groundwater is detected and appropriate remedial action is taken in the interests of public safety, pursuant to PPS23.

7) No development that is hereby approved shall commence unless and until samples and specifications of all materials to be used on all external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The development shall be constructed only using the approved materials unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Reason - To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable to the City Council as local planning authority in the interests of the visual amenity of the area within which the site is located, as specified in policies I3.1, R1.1 and DC18.1. of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

8) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, no development shall commence until final details of the proposed landscaping scheme to Lincoln Square and Mulberry Street (including details of the proposed materials) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented not later than 12 months from the date the proposed building is first occupied. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place,

Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme for the development is carried out that respects the character and visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policies I3.1, S1.1, E2.5, RC4. DC18.1 and DC19.1 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

9) Before first occupation of the development any externally mounted ancillary equipment, shall be acoustically insulated in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority in order to secure a reduction in the level of noise emanating from the equipment.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential accommodation, pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Manchester Unitary Development Plan.

10) No development shall commence until a scheme for the storage (including segregated waste recycling) and disposal of refuse for the office accommodation and ground floor unit(s) has be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The details of the approved scheme shall be implemented as part of the development and shall remain in situ whilst the use or development is in operation.

Reason - In the interests of amenity and public health, pursuant to Manchester Unitary Development Plan policy H2.2.

11) Deliveries, servicing and collections including waste collections shall not take place outside of the following hours:

07.30 to 20.00, Monday to Saturday, and no deliveries/ waste collection Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential accommodation, pursuant to policy H2.2, DC26.1 and DC26.5 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

12) Use of the office accommodation shall not commence unless and until a servicing strategy, including a schedule of loading and unloading locations and times, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. Servicing shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of public and highway safety and the protection of residential amenity, pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

13) Details of a Green Travel Plan Strategy, including details of implementation and monitoring of effectiveness, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The strategy shall outline procedures and policies that the developer and occupants of the site will adopt to secure the objectives of the overall site’s Green Travel Plan Strategy. Additionally, the strategy shall outline the monitoring procedures and review mechanisms that are to be put in place to ensure that the strategy and its implementation remain effective. The results of the monitoring and review processes shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and any measures that are identified that can improve the effectiveness of the Green Travel Plan Strategy shall be adopted and implemented.

Reason: In accordance with the provisions contained within planning policy guidance and in order to promote a choice of means of transport, pursuant to Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 policies E1.1 and T3.1 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

14) Before the development is completed a shop front and signage design strategy for the commercial units of that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area and to ensure the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner pursuant to policy I3.1 and DC14 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

15) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, before the development hereby approved is completed, details of the materials, including natural stone or other high quality materials to be used for the footpaths and for the areas between the pavement and the line of the proposed building, along with a surfacing strategy for the, vehicular crossings, and vehicular carriageways around the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. All works approved in discharge of this condition shall be fully completed before the development hereby approved is first occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Reason - In the interests of amenity and to ensure that paving materials are consistent with the use of these areas as pedestrian routes and in accordance with policy R1.1, I3.1, T3.1 and S1.1 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

16) The consent hereby granted is for a development that has full access into and throughout the building and public realm for tenants and members of the public, including those whose mobility is impaired.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and so as to provide direct access for all, pursuant to policy DC9.1 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

17) The details of an emergency telephone contact number shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location on the site and shall remain so displayed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity, pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

18) In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree, shrub or hedge which is to be as shown as retained on the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 (a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 5387 (Trees in relation to construction)

(b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

(c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason - In order avoid damage to trees/shrubs adjacent to and within the site which are of important amenity value to the area and in order to protect the character of the area, in accordance with Policies 2.4 and 2.6 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

19) All tree work should be carried out by a competent contractor in accordance with British Standard BS 3998 "Recommendations for Tree Work".

20) Studies containing the following with regard to television reception in the area containing the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority:

a) Measure the existing television signal reception within the potential impact area, as defined in the submitted Environmental Impact Statement, before development commences. The work shall be undertaken either by an aerial installer registered with the Confederation of Aerial Industries or by a body approved by the Office of Communications, and shall include an assessment of the survey results obtained.

b) Assess the impact of the development on television signal reception within the potential impact area identified in (a) above within one month of the practical completion of the development and at any other time during the construction of the development if requested in writing by the City Council as local planning authority in response to identified television signal reception problems within the potential impact area. The study shall identify such measures necessary to maintain at least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified in the survey carried out in (a) above unless otherwise agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 Reason: To provide an indication of the area of television signal reception likely to be affected by the development to provide a basis on which to assess the extent to which the development during construction and once built will effect TV reception and to ensure that the development at least maintains the existing level and quality of TV signal reception as advised in PPG 8 and pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

21) No development shall commence until details of the measures to be incorporated into the development (or phase thereof) to demonstrate how secure by design accreditation will be achieved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with these approved details. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or used until the Council as local planning authority has acknowledged in writing that it has received written confirmation of a secure by design accreditation.

Reason - To reduce the risk of crime pursuant to Policy E3.5 of the Unitary Development Plan of the City of Manchester and to reflect the guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement "Delivering Sustainable Development".

22) No development shall commence until details of the provision that will be made for nesting birds on the roof area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented not later than 12 months from the date the buildings are first occupied.

Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme for the development is carried out that respects the character and visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy E2.3 and E2.4 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

23) Before use of each ground level unit commences, details of the proposed opening hours for the unit(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The unit(s) shall be not be operated outside the hours approved in discharge of this condition.

Reason: In order that the local planning authority can action the objectives both of protecting the amenity of local residents and ensuring a variety of uses at street level in the area, pursuant to policy H2.2, DC26.1 and DC26.5 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

24) Before each ground floor unit is first brought into use for any purpose within the Class A1 or A3 use hereby approved a scheme for the extraction of any fumes, vapours and odours from any kitchen areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 Reason: In the interests of the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties, pursuant to policy H2.2, DC26.1 and DC26.5 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

25) Before each ground floor unit is first brought into use a servicing strategy, including a schedule of loading and unloading locations and times, for each separate unit should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. Servicing to each unit shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of public and highway safety and the protection of residential amenity, pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

26) Before the use of any of the ground floor units for any Class A3 or car/ motorbike showroom use hereby approved commences, the premises shall be acoustically insulated and treated to limit the break out of noise in accordance with a noise study of the premises and a scheme of acoustic treatment that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the building and occupiers of nearby properties, pursuant to policy H2.2, DC26.1 and DC26.5 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

27) Before first occupation of any of the ground floor units any externally mounted ancillary equipment, shall be acoustically insulated in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority in order to secure a reduction in the level of noise emanating from the equipment.

Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential accommodation, pursuant to policy H2.2, DC26,1 and DC26.5 of the Manchester Unitary Development Plan.

096932

1) The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this consent.

Reason - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as applied and modified in relation to buildings in conservation areas.

2) The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the building works for the redevelopment of the site approved under 096929/FO/2011/C2 has been made, and evidence of that contract has been supplied to the City Council as local planning authority.

Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 27 October 2011 Reason

In the interests of visual amenity and for the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure that redevelopment of the site takes place following demolition of the existing building pursuant to policy DC18 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

The documents referred to in the course of this report are either contained in the file(s) relating to application ref: 096929/FO/2011/C1 and 096932/CC/2011/C1 held by Planning or are City Council planning policies, the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, national planning guidance documents, or relevant decisions on other applications or appeals, copies of which are all held by the Planning Division.

Equal Opportunities

The proposal will make the site and its development directly accessible to all members of the public, including those with mobility impairments.

Environmental Improvements

The proposal will bring a significant improvement to the appearance of this site and the area generally.

Employment Implications

The proposal will create jobs during construction and on occupation a number of jobs will be created.

HEAD OF PLANNING