Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Application Number Date of Appln Committee Date Ward 106021/FO/2014/C2 30th Jun 2014 11th Sep 2014 Ancoats And Clayton Ward

Proposal Erection of 11 storey building to comprising 91 residential apartments (29 x 1 bed, 54 x 2 bed and 8 x 3 bed) (Use Class C3) Location Land Bounded By Tariff Street / Jacksons Warehouse And Rochdale Canal, Manchester, M1 2FJ Applicant , Town Centre Securities and GMI Construction, C/o Agent Agent Mr John Cooper, Deloitte LLP, 2 Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3HF

Site Description

The application relates to an irregular shaped site measuring approximately 0.12 hectares. The site is at canal side level and is approximately 3m below the surrounding street level. It is bounded by Tariff Street, the Rochdale Canal, the new canal basin and returns close to Jackson's Warehouse.

The site has been landscaped temporarily with grass, tree and low level shrub planting. It lies between the Ancoats and the Stevenson Square Conservation Areas and immediately adjacent to the site are 2 residential developments at Vantage Quay (7 storeys) and the Grade II* Listed Jackson's Warehouse (six storeys plus attic level). In addition to Jackson's Warehouse there are a number of other listed buildings located near to the site including Brownsfield Mill and Carvers Warehouse (both grade II*), 75 Dale Street (grade II) and the Rochdale Canal and its associated nearby locks and bridges ( grade II).

The application site is located within Piccadilly Basin and close to the Northern Quarter, Ancoats Urban Village and New Islington. The adjacent area is characterised by a mix of residential development, offices, parking (surface level and multi storey) vacant land and buildings, car parking and some food and drink related and retail uses. The site is close to Piccadilly Station, the Metrolink network, Piccadilly bus station and a number of bus routes.

The area contains a variety of building forms in terms of height, scale, mass and bulk. The buildings in the immediate vicinity are typically 5 to 7 storeys, but building heights do vary within the wider area with 111 Piccadilly being 19 storeys, Brownsfield Mill on Great Ancoats Street 8 storeys, The Place on Ducie Street is 8 storeys and the rear of Fourways House at 57 Dale Street is 9 storeys. Some of the historic listed buildings such as Jackson's Warehouse, Brownsfield Mill and The Place typically have larger floor to ceiling heights than a modern residential development.

The site is also located adjacent to the proposed terminus for HS2 and the Northern Hub which would create a world class transport hub and arrival point into the city and has the potential to transform the eastern side of the city centre through the creation of new districts, providing key linkages between East Manchester and the city centre.

217 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Planning History, Background and context

The application site was originally a timber yard. It has been identified as a development site since 1998 as part of regeneration plans for the Piccadilly Basin area and is now planned as a site for the next phase of development within this area. Outline Planning Permission was granted in 1998 ( Reference: 054382/FO/CITY3/98 ) for a mixed use development of housing, A1 retail, licensed retail & studio offices including works to listed buildings & canal structures, on land bounded by Dale Street, Great Ancoats Street, Ducie Street, Laystall Street & Port Street ( including this site ). This consent was implemented through the creation of the marina, and as such the outline planning permission remains extant for the delivery of a residential building on the subject site.

A now expired planning permission was subsequently granted in 2007 for 58 apartments above retail use within a part 6 / part 9 storey building (application ref no 083678/FO/2007/C3). The site was landscaped in 2006 to create a temporary amenity space pending the sites redevelopment

Description of Development

The application proposes the erection of an 11 storey building (ground floor plus levels 1 to10) containing 91 apartments (29 x 1 bed, 54 x 2 bed and 8 x 3 bed). The design concept is to provide a distinctive building form through the development of a series of dynamic layered blocks. It would comprise:

 A 6 storey lower level relating to the height of Jackson's Warehouse and shaped to respond to the canal and marina, extending to the edges of the site;

 A 3 storey middle layer with a regular form aimed at creating a strong edge to the Rochdale Canal;

 A 2 storey upper layer cantilevered over the middle volume to the south and north sides and positioned away from the Canal with the aim of creating visual interest within the wider cityscape.

The materials would reinforce the different levels and would comprise:

Ground floor : Glazing, perforated aluminium panels and aluminium detailing;

Lower volume : Brickwork, glazing and aluminium detailing;

Middle volume : Metallic finish aluminium, glazing and aluminium detailing;

Upper volume : Clear and opaque uncapped glazed curtain walling system, ceramic fritting and aluminium detailing.

The building would follow the line of the canal in order to reinforce the concept of the 'Mill Wall of Ancoats' created by Brownsfield Mill and Royal Mills and more recently

218 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 the adjacent Vantage Quay. The residential entrance would be located at level one and accessed from Tariff Street. A separate public pedestrian route along the Canal towpath would be maintained creating definition between the public and private realm. Where the new building abuts Tariff Street, the brick parapet wall would be removed. The remaining section of walling would be left in place.

The building would provide secure cycle storage for 91 cycles. 30 car parking spaces would be provided for lease within the adjoining multi storey town car park owned by one of the joint applicants Town Centre Securities (TCS).

It is anticipated that the development would be sold and management arrangements would be implemented. The apartments have been designed to aspire to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.

Private outside space for the ground floor apartments that face the canal and marina would be provided as well as an area of public realm adjacent to the marina and canal arm providing a link through to Jackson's Warehouse. The development would necessitate the removal of some lighting around Piccadilly Basin but where possible this would be retained, particularly to the marina and new lighting is proposed for the comfort and safety of both residents and the public along the towpath and existing light levels would be retained. The intention is to integrate recessed light fittings within the plinth at ground level of the building which would provide lighting across the towpath and walking surfaces, without causing glare or visual disturbance back into the apartments.

No affordable housing is proposed as part of the development.

In support of the application the applicants have stated the proposals would deliver a number of further benefits including:

 The current application has provided an opportunity to review the 2007 scheme in order to maximise the potential of the site from both a design and delivery point of view.  The current proposals represent a viable opportunity to regenerate an undeveloped site that does not currently contribute to the city centre. The proposed development would represent an important component of the future development of the Piccadilly Basin Masterplan area.  The proposals would regenerate a previously developed, vacant, brownfield site, which has been ear marked for development since 1998.  The proposal would maximise the potential of a site that is located in a highly accessible, City Centre location whilst ensuring a form of development that responds to its context and local environmental issues.  The development would deliver a landmark and dynamic development, designed by award winning architects.  The canal environment would be enhanced through the implemented of enhanced lighting along the tow path to create a well-lit and safe environment.  Market conditions are now different from when the previous consents were granted and the height of the building reflects the quantum of accommodation that is required to deliver a viable scheme on the site,

219 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

taking into account: the mix of uses (with leisure uses no longer proposed at the ground floor); the premium residential market positioning of the proposed apartments and the larger apartments that are proposed with a predominantly 2 bed apartment scheme (rather than predominantly 1 bed - reflected in the 2007 scheme); and, increased build costs associated with the current construction market and taking into account the substantially enhanced quality of the scheme compared to historic development proposals for the site.  The form and height of the scheme reflects the desire of the applicant to deliver a building of exceptional quality (rather than simply extending the previously consented rectilinear building form upwards by one storey). During pre-application discussions the merits of this approach were tested, in particular through an analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to adjoining buildings and townscape (in particularly key heritage assets) through a Visual Impact Assessment. The conclusion of that analysis was a building that would provide an appropriate contextual response to its surroundings, in terms of height, design and materials. It would represent a positive addition to the area, and represents the next phase of positive and meaningful regeneration in the Piccadilly Basin area.  Economic benefits would be delivered, including construction jobs, which would, where possible be targeted at local people.

The applicant engaged in pre-application consultation with adjoining owners and occupiers based around a public exhibition of the proposals. This included residents of Jackson's Warehouse and Vantage Quay and the occupiers of Urban Exchange - Pure Gym, Aldi, M&S Outlet Store and Go Outdoors. The applicant has also undertaken pre-application consultations with council officers, local members and statutory and amenity bodies.

A statement of Community Consultation has been submitted in support of the application and whilst this process has not led to any changes to the scheme the Statement sets out the development team's response to the comments made at pre- application stage.

Consultations

Publicity - The occupiers of adjacent premises were notified of the application and the development was advertised in the local press as a major development, affecting the setting of a listed building and affecting the setting of a conservation area. Site notices were placed adjacent to the site. 51 letters of objection have been received along with a letter from the Jackson's Warehouse Management Company

The grounds of objection relate to matters of processing in relation to pre-application consultation, design, impact on regeneration, development viability, Impacts on amenity / crime and disorder/ biodiversity, highways and traffic impacts, the development would be contrary to policy and how it compares with the previously approved scheme and these are summarised as follows:

220 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Process

 by failing to respond to comments made by local residents pre application the application is flawed in procedural terms in relation to the Government and Manchester City Council's policies on consultation and that as such there are grounds for a Judicial Review.

 That fencing is in the process of being erected on the site and the workman on site stated that they assumed that planning permission had been granted.

 none of the concerns have been addressed following the single public consultation event. The application has submitted a scheme identical to the pre-consultation proposal, and it has not been amended in any shape or form to reflect public comments, including that of residents following consultation.

Design

 the height of the proposed building at 11 stories is excessive for this area and will be double the height of the adjacent Vantage Quay and Jackson's Wharf and therefore the size of building proposed is not proportionate to existing developments within Piccadilly Basin.

 the development would be too high, too overbearing and too heavy in massing terms concerned on the marina side elevation of Jacksons Warehouse.

 there is no design justification for the building being twice the height of Jackson's Warehouse.

 the development would be out of character with the area overbearing on Jackson's Warehouse and Vantage Quay.

 the previous consents were a more appropriate height given the context and would not have such adverse impacts on adjacent residents in terms of privacy and overlooking.

 the development would have an adverse impact on views of the Grade II Listed Jackson's Warehouse and as a consequence be damaging to its character.

 the proposed development would block views of Jacksons Warehouse an important listed building.

 the development ignores the principle frontage onto Tariff Street and turns its back on this and Jackson's Warehouse.

 views from adjacent apartments would be ruined;

221 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

 the proposed development is too dense and too tall for the area and that the height needs to be reduced by a third;

 the proposed materials are in total contrast to and would not complement surrounding buildings.

 the proposed building is a significant deviation from the original previously approved buildings on the site and in design terms a 5/6 storey building would be more appropriate on this site.

 the scale of the building has the potential to act as a new benchmark for new development in the area.

 the area of the site is tiny for the amount of units propose and the area will become completely overcrowded.

 the design is far too modern to sit next to Jackson's Warehouse

 the upper floors should be set back from Jackson's Warehouse and the lower element should be no more than 5 storeys.

 the images of the building give a false impression of the height suggesting that the upper storeys would be completely transparent and have no impact in terms of overshadowing.

 the development is contrary to Core Strategy EN 3 (Heritage) as it is not designed so as to support the Council in preserving or, where possible, enhancing the historic environment, the character, setting and accessibility of areas and buildings of acknowledged importance (Jacksons Warehouse and Brownsfield Mill) and DM 1 (Development Management) as the proposal would have has an overbearing impact on the surrounding areas in terms of the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development as development should have regard to the character of the surrounding area.

 given the poor quality of the finishing around Vantage Quay there is no confidence that the quality of finishing to areas adjacent to the building would be acceptable following completion;

 the proposal would not address Jacksons Warehouse in any meaningful way compared with the previous planning application had this at the core of its design.

 any higher levels, if acceptable at all, should be set away from Jacksons Warehouse on the Tariff Street elevation.

 more needs to be done to address Tariff Street, and allow for the building to fit in better in its wider context as the scheme turns its back on Jacksons

222 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Warehouse and Tariff Street, and as such doesn't address these two important elevations.

Impact on Regeneration / Viability Issues

 the development is contrary to Core Strategy Policy H 8 (Affordable Housing) as it doesn't provide for any.

 the development is not utilising an existing "brownfield" sites and there are numerous ugly surface car parks in the immediate area that could be developed instead of removing green space.

 the development would have an adverse impact on regeneration efforts in the adjacent Ancoats area.

 whilst the need for a development to be profitable is understood this should not be at the expense of compromising what has to date been a very sensitive development of the Piccadilly Basin Area.

 the height has only been increased to provide more profit for the developer and that if the current economic climate is not conducive to an appropriately scaled development on the site then the developers should be made to wait by the planners until the financial climate has improved.

 the size of the development is too big and is driven purely by the greed of the developer to maximise profit

 the design has been driven by the investor having to wait so long to realise the capital from their investment and now wanting to capitalise on this as much as possible.

 It will no longer be possible to hold events on the site which in the past have attracted visitors to the area such as during the 2012 Olympics and have potential to create a sense of place as well as establish the area as a visitor attraction,

 an opportunity for enlivening the area has been lost by not having an active ground floor use

Amenity / Crime and Disorder/ Impact on Biodiversity

 the proposals would result in the loss of a heavily uses green recreational space and community facility within the city centre which is lacking in such space.

 the building would be too close to Jacksons Warehouse (less than 3m) and would have an unacceptable impact on privacy.

223 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

 the height of the development would mean that people in both Vantage Quay and Jackson's Warehouse would be overlooked with a resulting loss of privacy.

 the development would result in an unacceptable loss of light in principle rooms.

 it is unfair to current residents to now have their quality of life diminished by this huge new development blocking views and natural light;

 the canal basin is an area where numerous Canadian geese live and is used by local fishermen and the development would destroy this.

 the location of the proposed service yard would create a crime hotspot.

 an additional 91 apartments in the area would lead to more noise and disturbance for existing residents.

 the loss of light would stagnate the water in the basin and could lead to vitamin D deficiency for some residents within Vantage Quay.

 that any building work will cause disturbance and make it impossible to work from home.

 noise from construction over may years will have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing residents in the area and the proposed method of construction would lengthen the build by an extra 6 months causing disruption for adjacent residents who have already had to put up with the impact of the Urban Exchange Build.

 road closures associated with the development would severely impact on resident's access to Jackson's Warehouse.

 the development is contrary to Core Strategy Policies H1 (Housing Provision) as it is not designed to give privacy to both its residents and neighbours and DM 1 (Development Management) as it would have an unacceptable effect on amenity, including privacy and light

 illuminating the building at night will make it hard for adjacent residents to sleep.

 that some apartments would have views of the service areas.

 all the windows on the Marina elevation of Jacksons Warehouse are principal rooms (The top floor of Jacksons Warehouse consists entirely of bedrooms, with large windows (due to the design) over 3m wide). The proposals would impact on adjacent residents rights of light and due to the proposed building height, result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

224 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

 the proposed external illumination of the higher floors at night will lead to light pollution, and prevent residents from sleeping.

 the applicants own reports confirm that the proposal will have a significant negative impact on Jacksons Warehouse.

 as the plan is to not sell the apartments but either rent them or create yet another service apartment hotel, there will be little or no care taken by the intended residents as they will not be investing in the building or the area

Highways and Traffic

 there are concerns given the number of apartments proposed that no parking spaces are included within the development and that this would increase pressure on local parking facilities.

 the use of the cobbled gangway between the site and Jackson's Warehouse during construction would be inappropriate due to its tightness and that a street closure should be sought to allow site access from Tariff Street. Developers access to the site during construction needs to be clarified?

 the cobbled road beside Jacksons warehouse is part of the basins heritage and confirmation is required about what steps will be taken to preserve this cobbled heritage to ensure that no damage will occur during construction.

 confirmation is required about what will happen to the red brick wall that tracks alongside Tariff Street? Will the path way down from tariff street (opposite the pure gym) to the canal basin remain open for access to Jacksons warehouse as this currently provides a good route back from the shops, gym and secure car park on Tariff street.

 it is noted that the only access point for refuge collection and deliveries is across land owned by Jacksons Warehouse Management Committee, which is private and not in the demise of the proposed site and that the only right of way over this is for pedestrian access. No permission has been given for the use of this area for access.

 access for refuge and deliveries would block the entrance to the Jacksons Warehouse car park, and would also block demised spaces numbered 11 and 12 outside of the car park, on the adjacent cobbled area.

 there are not enough permitted spaces in this area to accommodate this many apartments, without adequate car parking provision being provided by the scheme and illegal on street parking, and not being able to find a parking meter, or get a parking permit to park on street is a big issue in this area.

Policy

225 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

 the proposal is contrary to Government and Manchester City Council's Policy which exposes it to further challenge.

 Policy H1 - Housing Provision as it is not designed to give privacy to both its residents and neighbours

 Policy H 8 - Affordable Housing - it doesn't provide for any.

 Policy EN 3 - Heritage - as not designed to complement and take advantage of the distinct historic and heritage features of its districts and neighbourhoods, including those of the City Centre and would not support the Council in preserving or, where possible, enhancing the historic environment, the character, setting and accessibility of areas and buildings of acknowledged importance.

 Policy DM 1 - Development Management - as the proposal would have an overbearing impact on the surrounding areas in terms of the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development and does not have regard to the character of the surrounding area.

 in addition due to an unacceptable effect on amenity, including privacy and light as there is a clear loss of light and privacy to a number of apartments in Jacksons Warehouse.

 Policy EN 1 - Design Principles and Strategic Character Areas - As it does not consider the City's heritage such as the importance of Jacksons Warehouse as an important grade II* listed building and would not enhance existing and provide any new areas of meaningful open space or consider the maintenance and improvement of the City's permeability.

Comments on merits of proposed scheme compared with previously consented 2007 scheme.

 the current proposal ignores all the points that made the previous application acceptable in planning terms. The 2007 planning officers' report included statements that the previous application was only acceptable as "the reason for revisiting the previously approved scheme was to allow Jackson's Warehouse to play a more prominent role in the composition of the marina and that as such the listed Warehouse would continue to be the most significant building around the marina and it would maintain its presence. It concluded that the proposed building would not be detrimental to the character or setting of the grade II* listed building.

Other

 the proposal would affect the value of adjacent apartments.

 have structural tests been performed to establish that the ground can bare the weight of this new build, and not impact structurally Jacksons

226 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

warehouse or the canal basin and who would underwrites the risk of consequential damages?

Manchester Conservation Areas and Historic Buildings Panel (Draft comments) - The Panel felt that the proposed building would tower above everything else and was a poor response to its context. They observed that modern development so far hadn't over dominated the listed buildings in the area, but because of its height, this building would become the dominant building.

The Panel were concerned that the building will have an impact on the long views and is likely to be a very significant feature that will detract from the view and setting of significant listed buildings.

The Panel felt that the lower levels were more successful but had concern over the upper level. They felt that the lower brick section worked very well and was well detailed and the aluminium second tier was also to a degree acceptable, but the Panel expressed concern over the top tier. It was felt that this was less successful and sat oddly on the other tiers. The Panel felt that the notion of an ethereal box is always undermined when it comes to the compromises needed to make the building function, and would unfortunately also be affected by the usual clutter that goes with householder occupation. This would ultimately compromise the appearance if clutter was to be seen through the glazing.

The Panel thought that the brick section could be higher in its own right as it was a good interpretation of the older mills in the area, but they felt that the two tiers above the brick base didn't add anything to the design.

The Panel welcomed a building on the site as it would be improved by having a building in this location, although the loss of the open space was regretful.

The Panel said that the detailing of the building is very important and would be key to its success. They also felt that there was a lot to commend the lower section but the proportion of the upper levels was of concern and should be reduced by a storey in each of the top tiers.

The Panel asked for an archaeological condition to assess what was previously on the site.

English Heritage - Have stated that they do not believe that the scheme would cause harm to the setting of the highly graded heritage assets adjacent to the development site as the area is already highly fragmented exhibiting different dates and styles as well as design quality. They note that in some ways a building at this site will improve the setting of the listed buildings by creating a sense of enclosure to frame the buildings and that therefore, this development is an opportunity to enhance the setting of the heritage assets in line with NPPF para 56-68 and 131.

They state that the proposals should aspire to a quality of design and execution which may be valued now and in the future and feel the design could be further enhanced in a couple of simple ways. They feel that the materiality of the base layer would emphasise local distinctiveness and work better in the immediate context if it

227 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 was in a good quality red brick and that this application that might benefit from a design review to ensure the highest quality of design for this sensitive location. They note that in assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the recommendations from the design review panel (NPPF para 62). It is noted that the archaeological desk based assessment identified potential for buried remains on the development site and the Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service should be contacted to establish an archaeological mitigation strategy prior to the development of the site.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services (Highway Services) - Have no objections but have made comments about the need for conditions in relation to traffic management during the construction phase and about the number of contract parking spaces to be provided.

Head of Regulatory and Enforcement Services (Environmental Health)- Have no objections but have recommended conditions relating to the storage and disposal of refuse, acoustic insulation of the residential accommodation, acoustic insulation of associated plant and equipment, fume extraction and the hours during which deliveries can take place. Advice has also been given about appropriate working hours during construction

Head of Regulatory and Enforcement Services (Contaminated Land ) - Have no objections subject to a condition relating to the need to carry out a full site investigation in respect of potential contaminated land issues relating to the propose developments and the need to submit details of appropriate remedial measures be attached to any consent granted.

Head of Growth and Neighbourhood Services (Arboriculture) - Has no objections.

Canal and River Trust - Have no objections to the proposed development, subject to the submission of further information and the imposition of conditions

However they do raise concerns over the potential for the proposed building to dominate the adjacent Grade II* Listed Jackson's Warehouse and adversely affect its setting, due to its height and scale. They state that that the choice of materials needs to be compatible with and sympathetic to the canal-side setting and they advocate the use of lighter materials at the higher levels to serve to lighten the otherwise dominant mass of the building. They believe that the projecting nature of the top level may not be appropriate to the historic setting of the site and feel that this should be re-considered. English Heritage's suggestion about the use of a design review is supported.

They believe the key to ensuring that the development integrates with its surroundings is the use of appropriate hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatments on the canal-side and request that these details should be required by condition

In terms of connectivity they emphasise the importance of the proposed development successfully connecting to the canal-side, to ensure that the development introduces

228 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 further activity and animation and contributes to the increased use of the towpath network throughout the city centre and in this respect note that the stepped link between Tariff Street and the canal-side will be retained and remain open for use by the public in addition to the residents of the proposed apartments. They note that detailed boundary treatments and external finishes need to be designed to clearly indicate that this route is open to the public, in order to encourage the use of the canal-side space by pedestrians and cyclists.

Comments are also made in relation to appropriate site contamination mitigation measures and site drainage in relation to the adjacent watercourse.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit - Have no objections.

Wildlife Trust - No comments received

Head of Growth and Neighbourhood Services (Travel Change Team City Policy) - Have no objections but have made some comments on the Framework Travel Plan which have been passed to the applicant.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit - Note the archaeological desk based assessment submitted as a supporting document by the applicant in accordance with NPPF paragraph 128 and they state that the report examined the history of the site and the potential for below-ground archaeological remains relating to the former canal side warehouse of the 1840s and analysed 5 geotechnical test pits across the site, 2 of which yield in situ remains of the original canal side wall which was also the foundation for one side of the warehouse; whilst the other 3 test pits showed no insitu remains had survived.

On the basis of this whilst they have no objections to the development, they note that it is possible that evidence for the original power systems and fabric of the warehouse will survive in part and will be destroyed by the development ground works. They have recommended that the site's heritage interests be addressed and recorded through a phased programme of archaeological work to be undertaken to record and understand the heritage assets to be lost by a qualified archaeological contractor funded by the applicant prior to development commencing.

Environment Agency - Have no objections but have recommended conditions in relation to ensuring the quality of water within the Rochdale Canal be attached to any consent granted.

Greater Manchester Police (Design for Security) - Have no objections but have made some detailed comments in relation to access controls to various parts of the building and site boundaries which will require further consideration by the applicants.

Transport for Greater Manchester - No comments received.

United Utilities -Have no objection but have made comments in relation to drainage and water supply (which have been passed to the applicant) and have recommended that specific conditions are included in any planning permission granted to ensure

229 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 that no surface water from this development is discharged either directly or indirectly to the combined sewer network and that the site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer

Issues

Relevant National Policy

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to apply. The central theme to the NPPF is to achieve sustainable development. The Government states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role, a social role and an environmental role (paragraphs 6 & 7). Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the NPPF outline a "presumption in favour of sustainable development". This means approving development, without delay, where it accords with the development plan. Paragraph 12 states that:

"Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise."

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of the NPPF for the reasons outlined below.

Core Strategy

The Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2012 -2027 ("the Core Strategy") was adopted on 11July 2012 and is the key document in Manchester's Local Development Framework. It replaces significant elements of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and sets out the long term strategic planning policies for Manchester's future development.

The proposals are considered to be consistent with Core Strategy Policies SP1, CC3, H1, H8, CC5, CC6, CC7, CC9, CC10, T1, T2, EN1, EN2, EN3, EN4, EN6, EN8, EN9, EN14, EN15, EN16, EN17, EN18, EN19 DM1 and PA1 for the reasons set out below.

The adopted Core Strategy contains a number of Strategic Spatial Objectives that form the basis of its policies:

SO1. Spatial Principles - which provides a framework within which the sustainable development of the City can contribute to halting climate change. This development would be in a highly accessible location and reduce the need to travel by private car.

SO2. Economy - which supports a significant further improvement of the City's economic performance to and spread the benefits of this growth across the City to reduce economic, environmental and social disparities, and to help create inclusive sustainable communities. The scheme would provide new jobs during construction and would provide housing near to employment opportunities.

230 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

S03 Housing - supports a significant increase in high quality housing provision at sustainable locations throughout the City, to both address demographic needs and to support economic growth. The submitted Planning Statement highlights that the Manchester population grew by 20% between 2001 and 2011 demonstrating the draw of the city and the power of its economy within the region. This has allowed the economy to grow in recent years and this requires the provision of well located housing to provide an attractive place for prospective workers to live in so that the can contribute positively to the economy. The Tariff Street scheme would provides 91 apartments in a highly accessible location to help to meet demand for housing near to employment opportunities.

S05. Transport - seeks to improve the physical connectivity of the City, through sustainable transport networks, to enhance its functioning and competitiveness and provide access to jobs, education, services, retail, leisure and recreation. This development would be in a highly accessible location close to all modes of public transport and reduce the need to travel by private car and make the most effective use of existing public transport facilities.

S06. Environment - the development would be consistent with the aim of seeking to protect and enhance both the natural and built environment of the City and ensure the sustainable use of natural resources in order to:

 mitigate and adapt to climate change;  support biodiversity and wildlife;  improve air, water and land quality; and  improve recreational opportunities;  and ensure that the City is inclusive and attractive to residents, workers, investors and visitors.

Saved UDP Policies - Whilst the Core Strategy has now been adopted some of the UDP policies have been saved. The proposals are considered to be consistent with saved UDP policies DC19.1, DC20 and DC26 for the reasons set out below.

Planning applications in Manchester must be decided in accordance with the Core Strategy, saved UDP policies and other Local Development Documents.

NPPF Section 1 - Building a strong and competitive economy and Core Strategy Policy SP 1 (Spatial Principles - The proposal would develop a currently underutilised, previously developed site to provide a high-quality development. The development would be highly sustainable and be consistent with the aim of bringing forward economic and commercial development, alongside high quality city living within the Regional Centre in a location which would reduce the need to travel. This would assist in building a strong economy through employment creation during construction, complementing the well established community and contributing to the local economy through the use of facilities and services by residents. The development would make a positive contribution to neighbourhoods of choice by enhancing the built and natural environment and creating a well designed place that would both enhance and create character,

231 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

NPPF Section 2 Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres - the proposal would contribute to the creation of a neighbourhood which would help to attract and retain a diverse labour market. This would support GM's growth objectives by delivering appropriate housing to meet the demands of a growing economy and population, adjacent to a major employment centre in a well-connected location and therefore would assist in the promotion of sustained economic growth.

NPPF Section 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport, Core Stategy Policies CC5 (Transport), T1 Sustainable Transport and T2 Accessible Areas of Opportunity and Need - The proposal is in a highly accessible location in close proximity to Piccadilly Station which provides direct connections to the Airport and other UK Cities. Metrolink and Piccadilly Bus Station are within walking distance. Development here would contribute to wider sustainability and health objectives and give people a real choice about how they travel and help to connect residents to jobs, local facilities and open space. It would contribute to improving air quality and would encourage modal shift away from car travel to more sustainable alternatives. The development would also include improvements to pedestrian routes and the pedestrian environment which would prioritise pedestrian and disabled people, cyclists and public transport.

NPPF Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), Core Strategy Policies CC3 Housing, Policy H1 Overall Housing Provision, Policy H8 - Affordable Housing and Policy CC10 A Place of Everyone - The proposal would provide an efficient, high-density development in a sustainable location within the heart of the City Centre. The apartments would appeal to a wide range of people from single professionals and young families to older singles and couples. The scheme would provide a range of accommodation sizes and types and help to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities within this part of the City Centre.

Manchester's economy is growing post-recession and significant investment in housing is required in locations that would support and sustain this growth. The City Centre is the biggest source of jobs in the region and this proposal would provide suitable accommodation to support the growing economy as well as contributing to the creation of a sustainable, inclusive, mixed and vibrant community.

It is expected that a minimum of 16,500 new homes will be provided within the City Centre from 2010-2027. The Piccadilly area has been identified as a key location for residential growth and this scheme would contribute to meeting the overall housing targets identified for the City Centre within the Core Strategy.

The development would contribute towards an ambition that 90% of new housing will be built on brownfield sites and have a positive impact on the built environment of the surrounding area. The proposed development has been designed to seek to minimise potential for loss of privacy.

A Viability Appraisal has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority in order to consider the potential for the proposed development to contribute towards affordable housing within the city. The appraisal demonstrates that the proposed scheme is viable and capable of being delivered; however, the appraisal concludes that the development cannot support affordable housing. This issue is discussed in more detail below.

232 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

NPPF Sections 7 (Requiring Good Design),and 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment), Core Strategy Policies EN1 (Design Principles and Strategic Character Areas), EN2 (Tall Buildings), CC6 (City Centre High Density Development), CC9 Design and Heritage, EN3 (Heritage) and saved UDP Policy DC19.1 (Listed Buildings) - The proposed scheme has been the subject of significant design consideration and consultation. It would be a high density development and maximise the efficient use of land and is considered to be appropriate to the City Centre context. The development would be classified as a tall building within its local context but would be of a high quality and would help to raise the standard of design more generally in the area. It has the support of English Heritage in terms of it impact on the heritage value and setting of adjacent listed buildings. The development would be appropriately located within the site, contribute positively to sustainability, contribute positively to place making and would bring significant regeneration benefits whilst its integration into the natural and built environment would improve connections with local communities.

The proposal involves a good quality design, and would result in development which would enhance the character of the area and the overall image of Manchester. The design responds positively at street level and provides improvements to the adjacent areas of public realm which would result in improvements to the City's permeability. The positive aspects of the design of the proposals are discussed in more detail below.

A Tall Building Statement submitted with the application identifies key views and assesses the impact of the proposed tall building upon these. It also evaluates the tall building in terms of its relationship to its site context / transport infrastructure and its effect on the local environment and amenity. This is discussed in more detail below.

It is considered that the quality and design of the proposed building would sustain the heritage value of the identified heritage assets. This is discussed in more detail below.

Policy DC20 (Archaeology) - Consideration of the application has had regard to the desirability of securing the preservation of sites of archaeological interest.

Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, Core Strategy Policies EN4 (Reducing CO2 Emissions by Enabling Low and Zero Carbon) EN6 (Target Framework for CO2 reductions from low or zero carbon energy supplies), EN 8 (Adaptation to Climate Change), EN14 (Flood Risk) and DM1 (Development Management- Breeam requirements) -The application site is in a highly sustainable location and would aim to secure a level 3 Code for Sustainable Homes Rating with an aspiration to achieve Code 4. The Environmental Standards Statement submitted with the application demonstrates that the development would accord with a wide range of principles intended to promote the responsible development of energy efficient buildings integrating sustainable technologies from conception, through feasibility, design and build stages and also in operation. The proposed development would follow the principles of the Energy Hierarchy to reduce CO2 emissions. The application is supported by an Energy Statement, which sets out

233 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 how the proposals would meet the requirements of the target framework for CO2 reductions from low or zero carbon energy supplies.

The site is located within Flood Risk Zone 1

NPPF Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment), Core Strategy Policies EN 9 (Green Infrastructure), EN15 ( Biodiversity and Geological Conservation), EN 16 (Air Quality), Policy EN 17 (Water Quality) Policy EN 18 (Contaminated Land and Ground Stability) and EN19 (Waste) - Information submitted with the application has considered the potential risk of various forms of pollution, including ground conditions, air and water quality, noise and vibration, waste, biodiversity and lighting and has demonstrated that the application proposals would not have any significant adverse impacts in respect of pollution. Surface water run-off and grounds water contamination would be minimised

The development would provide new planting and enhance green links within the urban area. The Ecology Report submitted with the application concluded that there was no conclusive evidence of any specifically protected species regularly occurring on the site or the surrounding areas which would be negatively affected by site development following the mitigation proposed. The vegetation to be cleared has a low ecological significance in the local area and the trees on the development boundary are young and low quality. The development would be highly accessible by all forms of public transport and would reduce reliance on cars and therefore minimise emissions from traffic generated by the development.

The development would be consistent with the principles of waste hierarchy. In addition the application is accompanied by a Waste Management Strategy which details the measures that would be undertaken to minimise the production of waste both during construction and operation. The Strategy states that coordination through the onsite management team would ensure the various waste streams throughout the development are appropriately managed.

Policy DM 1- Development Management - In addition to Code for Sustainable Homes requirements, this also outlines a range of general issues that all development should have regard to and of these, the following issues are or relevance to this proposal: :

 appropriate siting, layout, scale, form, massing, materials and detail;  design for health;  adequacy of internal accommodation and amenity space.  impact on the surrounding areas in terms of the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development;  that development should have regard to the character of the surrounding area;  effects on amenity, including privacy, light, noise, vibration, air quality and road safety and traffic generation;  accessibility to buildings, neighbourhoods and sustainable transport modes;  impact on safety, crime prevention and health; adequacy of internal accommodation , external amenity space, refuse storage and collection, vehicular access and car parking; and

234 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

 impact on biodiversity, landscape, archaeological or built heritage, green Infrastructure and flood risk and drainage.

The above issues are considered in detail in below.

Policy PA1 Developer Contributions - This is discussed in the section on Viability and Affordable Housing Provision below

DC26.1 and DC26.5 (Development and Noise) - Details how the development control process will be used to reduce the impact of noise on people living and working in the City stating that this will include consideration of the impact that development proposals which are likely to be generators of noise will have on amenity and requiring where necessary, high levels of noise insulation in new development as well as noise barriers where this is appropriate This is discussed below.

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. It seeks development of an appropriate height having regard to location, character of the area and specific site circumstances and local effects, such as microclimatic ones. For the reasons set out later in this report the proposals would be consistent with these principles and standards.

Manchester City Centre Strategic Plan - The Manchester City Centre Strategic Plan (published in 2009) - presents a vision for the City Centre and sets out the strategic action required to work towards achieving this over the period from 2009 - 2012. The Plan considers the contribution to be made towards achieving the overall vision by each of the district components of the City Centre and recognises the key role of Manchester City Centre in providing a positive image and framework for inward investment and explains that its continued strong economic performance within a high quality urban environment will be fundamental to the prosperity of both Manchester and its city region. Piccadilly Gateway has attracted investment in its regeneration and infrastructure. The Piccadilly area is a major gateway to the city is critical not only to the city's functionality but also perceptions about Manchester and the city-region. Piccadilly continues to attract investment and is a desirable office location. Regeneration remains a high priority here with an emphasis on improving this key gateway location. The proposal would complement existing uses in the area and make a significant contribution towards the objectives contained within the Strategic Plan.

HS2 Manchester Piccadilly Strategic Regeneration Framework (HS2 Manchester Piccadilly SRF') - This relates to the area surrounding Piccadilly Station and respond to the opportunities presented by HS2 and the Northern Hub. The application site is located within an area identified as having major regeneration potential in the context of the delivery of High Speed (HS2). The Framework states that new development and uses within Piccadilly Basin, for example, should reinforce the existing urban grain and encourage residential development focussed on the canal basins. The proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the regeneration framework

235 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Stronger Together: Greater Manchester Strategy 2013 - This is the sustainable community strategy for the Greater Manchester City Region. It was originally prepared in 2009 as a response to the Manchester Independent Economic Review (MIER) which identified Manchester as the best placed city outside London to increase its long term growth rate based on its size and productive potential. This sets out a vision for Greater Manchester where by 2020, the City Region will have pioneered a new model for sustainable economic growth based around a more connected, talented and greener City Region, where all its residents are able to contribute to and benefit from sustained prosperity and a high quality of life.

The proposed residential development of the application site will clearly support and align with the overarching programmes being promoted by the City Region via the GM Strategy.

The prospectus acknowledges the urgent need to build more new homes for sale and rent to meet future demands from the growing population and to address undersupply. The core principle running through the document is that there is a requirement to build more new homes in order to support future growth and the Council is actively looking to adopt measures to enable this. The proposals represent an opportunity to partially address the requirement through bringing a site to market that had previously stalled during the recession.

Legislative requirements

Section 66 of the Listed Building Act 1990 provides that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Section 72 of the Listed Building Act provides that in the exercise of the power to determine planning applications for land or buildings within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

S149 Equality Act 2010 provides that in the exercise of all its functions the Council must have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between person who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. This includes taking steps to minimise disadvantages suffered by persons sharing a protect characteristic and to encourage that group to participate in public life. Disability is a protected characteristic.

S17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that in the exercise of its planning functions the Council shall have regard to the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.

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 (as amended 2011)

236 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

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 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 significant effects.

Having taken into account the EIA Directive and Regulations it is therefore considered that an Environmental Assessment is not required in this instance.

Issues

Principle of the Proposed Use and the Scheme' Contribution to Regeneration - Regeneration is an important consideration in terms of evaluating the merits of this application. Manchester City Centre is the primary economic driver in the City Region and as such is crucial to its longer economic success. There is an important link between economic growth, regeneration and the provision of new residential development. The national economy has entered a new growth cycle but the diverse nature of the Citys economic base, has meant that it has been relatively resilient during the economic recession. The next phase economic and population growth is now underway and a key part of this process is the provision of new housing.

Manchester's population is expected to increase by 100,000 by 2030, and this together with trends and changes in household formation will result in an increase in demand for residential accommodation. An additional 60,000 new homes are expected to be required over the next 20 years (3,000 per annum) and the proposed development would contribute to meeting that need within part of the City Centre which has been identified as being a suitable location for additional residential development. The quality and mix of the product and the size of the apartments have been designed to appeal to a range of potential occupiers.

Residential development at the site would be consistent with a number of the GM Strategy's key growth priorities by the delivery of appropriate housing to meet the demands of a growing economy and population, in a well-connected location adjacent to a major employment centre. It would therefore assist in the promotion of sustained economic growth within the City.

Progress has been made in delivering the wider Masterplan although this has been frustrated over the past five years. Office developments have progressed at Carvers Warehouse and BDPs new offices and the Urban Exchange Retail Park have been developed. Brownsfield Mill has been comprehensively refurbished, a multi-storey car park has been built on Tariff Street and there have been significant levels of investment in public realm. Residential developments has included the refurbishment of Jackson's Warehouse, the construction of Vantage Quay and the formation of the marina which connects these sites with the application site. The proposed development would complete the original design intent for the marina which

237 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 envisaged an enclosing residential building running parallel to it, completing the masterplan vision for this part of Piccadilly Basin.

The proposals would deliver a high quality building and regenerate a previously developed vacant site. The scheme could act as a catalyst for the delivery of further phases of regeneration within Piccadilly Basin and beyond. This development would complement adjacent regeneration initiatives and be consistent with the City Councils Residential Growth Prospectus. It would predominantly deliver 2 bed apartments (as opposed to 1-bed apartments which make up a significant element of the existing stock) and would help to diversify the City's overall offer in addition to making a significant contribution to identified demand for new residential development in the City.

In view of the above the development would be in keeping with the objectives of the City Centre Strategic Plan, the Greater Manchester Strategy, and would complement and build upon Manchester City Council's current and planned regeneration initiatives and as such would be consistent with sections 1 and 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Core Strategy policies SP1, EC1, CC1, ,CC4, CC7, CC8, CC10, EN1 and DM1.

Viability and affordable housing provision - The NPPG provides guidance for applicants and Councils stating that decision-taking does not normally require consideration of viability. However, where the deliverability of the development may be compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability assessment may be necessary.

The NPPG sets out in relation to brownfield sites, that Local Planning Authorities should seek to work with interested parties to promote their redevelopment. To incentivise the bringing back into use of brownfield sites, Local Planning Authorities should:

 Consider the different funding mechanisms available to them to cover potential costs of bringing such sites back into use.; and  Take a flexible approach in seeking levels of planning obligations and other contributions to ensure that the combined total impact does not make a site unviable.

Core Strategy Policy PA1 considers the Council's specific policy requirements in relation to Planning Obligations. It states that where needs arise as a result of development, the Council will seek to secure planning obligations. It outlines the range of provisions that such obligations may require and advises that this should be assessed on a site by site basis. Of relevance to this application could be provision of affordable housing, community facilities, the provision of green infrastructure including open space, public realm improvements, protection or enhancement of environmental value and climate change mitigation / adaptation. In the past, City Centre residential developments have in some instances, contributed towards environmental and residential infrastructure improvements. However in determining the nature and scale of a planning obligation, it is necessary to take into account specific site conditions and other material considerations including viability, redevelopment of previously developed land or mitigation of contamination.

238 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

There is a city wide requirement that on all residential developments of 0.3 hectares and above, or where 15 or more units are proposed, a contribution should be made to the City-wide target for 20% of new housing provision to be affordable. There are exemptions where either a financial viability assessment is conducted that demonstrates that it is not viable to deliver affordable housing or a proportion; or where material considerations indicate that intermediate or social rented housing would be inappropriate

The criteria that might qualify developments for exemptions that are of relevance in this instance include:

 That inclusion of affordable housing would prejudice the achievement of other important planning or regeneration objectives which are included within existing Strategic Regeneration Frameworks, planning frameworks or other Council approved programmes;

 It would financially undermine significant development proposals critical to economic growth within the City; The financial impact of the provision of affordable housing, combined with other planning obligations would affect scheme viability;

The application site is previously developed land that has been vacant for a considerable period of time. Extensive public realm improvements have been delivered in the canal basin area, including significant enhancement works to adjoining public realm, including the new marina, the reinstatement of the Canal, towpaths, provision of footbridges and associated works. These works significantly improved access to the area and the City Centre. TCS funded the £4m programme of works with the assistance of an ERDF grant.

The applicant has provided a Viability Statement which sets out that the development cannot reasonably support on-site provision or a commuted payment towards affordable housing or a Section 106 contribution. The applicants have demonstrated that the financial impact of providing affordable housing, combined with other planning obligations would adversely affect scheme viability. Given this and the relevant national and local guidance in relation to viability it is concluded that the proposed scheme justifies a flexible approach in terms of the agreement of planning obligations and other contributions and it is accepted that there is no scope for the development to remain viable with any S106 or affordable housing contribution.

In view of the above the proposals are on balance considered to be acceptable with respect to Core Stategy policies H8 and PA1.

Design Issues / Impact on Townscape - CABE/ English Heritage Guidance on Tall Buildings - One of the main issues to consider in assessing this proposal is whether the scale of the development is appropriate for the site. The proposed development at 11 storeys is considered within its local context to be a tall building and as such the proposal needs to be assessed against Core Strategy Policies that relate to Tall Buildings and the criteria as set out in the Guidance on Tall Buildings Document published by English Heritage and CABE.

239 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Design Issues, Relationship to context and impact on Heritage Environment

Under these criteria the effect of the proposal on key views, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeology and open spaces has been considered.

A key part of the site's context, and a significant design driver for the scheme has been the relationship of the site to a number of designated heritage assets which contribute to the sites context. This includes Jackson's Warehouse, Brownsfield Mill and Carvers Warehouse (all grade II*) and Locks 83 and 84 and 75 Dale Street (all grade II) and the adjoining Stevenson Square and Ancoats Conservation Areas. In addition key views of the historic environment, particularly views up and down the Rochdale Canal and along the 'mill wall of Ancoats' have been considered.

Piccadilly Basin has changed considerably since 1998 and a considerable amount of new development has been successfully brought forward. This should continue with the development of this site which would complete the final residential piece around the marina and create a proper sense of enclosure and frame the views of adjacent listed buildings. The solid base provided by the brickwork would in particular have a positive relationship to the form, and materiality of adjacent listed buildings.

The proposal has been designed and developed in collaboration with heritage consultants and following extensive consultation with English Heritage (EH). The massing and design of the scheme was developed to respond to comments raised by English Heritage.

EH advised during the pre- application process that a building at this site could improve the setting of the listed buildings by creating a sense of enclosure to frame views of the buildings and therefore that this development represents an opportunity to enhance the setting of the heritage assets EH have acknowledged that the scheme would not cause harm to the setting of the highly graded heritage assets adjacent to the site as the area is already highly fragmented exhibiting different dates and styles of buildings as well as design quality. A building at this site could improve the setting of the listed buildings by creating a sense of enclosure to frame the buildings. Therefore, this development is an opportunity to enhance the setting of the heritage assets in line with NPPF paragraph 56-68 and 131.

It is considered that the proposals would be of an acceptable scale and massing. and would deliver the quantum of accommodation necessary to make the scheme viable. It would establish an acceptable relationship with surrounding and neighbouring buildings and contribute to place making and design quality in the area.

The distribution of the massing would relate to the context of the canal corridor and the layout would follow the line of the canal, and reinforce the concept of the 'Mill Wall of Ancoats' created by Brownsfield Mill and Royal Mills. The relationship of the north-western building edge with Jackson's Warehouse would reflect the relationship between Vantage Quay and Jackson's Warehouse and is also consistent with the position of the building shown on the 1998 masterplan application.

240 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

The location of the residential entrance on Tariff Street would provide a presence within the street scene creating a proper street wall to the site. This would respond to the existing urban grain whilst maintaining a separate public pedestrian route along the canal towpath, and create a defined public/ private realm boundary.

The lower layer of the building would respond to the canal and marina lines and extend to the edges of the site. The top of this layer would relate to Jackson's Warehouse and to Brownsfield Mill further along the canal. The building steps back above floor 6 adjacent to Jackson's Warehouse and establish an acceptable relationship with the warehouse. The central layer between floors 7 and 9 would have a relationship with the wider context beyond the site and reinforce the mill wall concept established by Brownsfield Mill and Royal Mills.

The 2-storey glazed box that forms the top layer at floors 10 and 11 would be the most visible in longer views. The positioning of the volume away from the canal is aimed at balancing the massing with respect to both Jackson's Warehouse and the wider canal corridor context. This layer would have a greater impact in terms of overlooking of some windows than if it were positioned towards the canal. However, in the context of the urban grain and density levels within the City Centre, this is on balance considered to be acceptable.

The principle of taller buildings has previously been established in this part of the City Centre with a previous 6/9 storey approval on this site. The site is capable of accommodating a building of the height proposed without having an adverse impact on the nearby listed buildings. The height of the building would act as a place making element within Piccadilly Basin, reinforcing the importance of the area as a linkage between the City Centre, its fringes and Ancoats.

The development would add activity and vitality to the area and would reintegrate the site into its urban context, reinforcing the character of the streetscape and producing a sense of scale. The highest element within the scheme would be 11 storeys which is 2 storeys higher than the previous approval and the overall density of development on the site would be increased. This increase in density and height is mainly required to generate the floorspace necessary to make the proposal deliverable and financially viable. The proposed scheme makes the most efficient use of the site whilst reducing its impact on the heritage values of assets in the vicinity of the site.

The application site is located adjacent to a grade II*, and a number of grade II, listed buildings. It is adjacent to the Ancoats and Stevenson Square Conservation Areas. There are no World Heritage Sites or Scheduled Monuments in the immediate vicinity. A Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) has assessed the likely townscape and visual impacts of the proposals upon the application site and surrounding area. 5 verified photomontages were considered from viewpoints agreed with English Heritage providing a 360 degree analysis.

The verified views indicate that the development would be contextually responsive in its mass and materiality to the adjacent and wider historic environment. They also demonstrate that it would not prevent the appreciation or significance of the townscape value of adjacent buildings or, the ability to appreciate the heritage values of the adjacent listed buildings.

241 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

The Visual Impact Assessment concludes that the development would result in one instance of major impact on the key heritage assets in view, one instance a moderate impact, one instance each of minor impact, negligible and no impact. However the instance of major impact is not considered to be negative but medium beneficial as the development would help to focus the eye on the canal and to Jackson's Warehouse and Brownsfield Mill. Overall, it is considered that the quality and design of the building and its contribution to the surrounding townscape are such that they would sustain the heritage values of the identified heritage assets.

In view of the above it is considered that the overall impact of the proposed development, including the impact on heritage assets, would not outweigh the clear regeneration benefits that would result from the development of this site.

Relationship to Public Transport Infrastructure

The site is extremely well connected to the surrounding area with a pedestrian route along the Rochdale Canal into the city centre and Piccadilly Station. The site has very good access along Tariff Street and Laystall Street to the Great Ancoats Street inner ring road with its connections to the motorway network. The site is close to Metrolink, Metroshuttle and Piccadilly bus station.

Architectural Quality

The key factors to evaluate are the buildings scale, form, massing, proportion and silhouette, materials and its relationship to other structures.

The Core Strategy policy on tall buildings seeks to ensure that tall buildings complement the City's existing buildings and make a positive contribution to the creation of a unique, attractive and distinctive City. It identifies sites within and immediately adjacent to the City Centre as being suitable for tall buildings.

The development has been designed to integrate with its immediate context and the wider City Centre. The proposal is for a high quality building with a properly defined street edge and site corners. The massing has been considered so as not to adversely affect the setting of the adjacent and nearby listed buildings or conservation areas and to add a positive element to the Manchester Skyline and it could serve as a place making element within the area providing a visual linkage between Piccadilly Basin and Ancoats and New Islington to the north.

The ground floor would be raised and recessed to provide some separation from the towpath and this would be re-inforced by the provision of glass screen. Along the canal arm / 'marina', the development would initially follow the water's edge from the point at the southern apex of site, leaving a broad zone of public realm with access to Jackson's Warehouse.

A 'kink' in the middle of the elevation would lessen the apparent mass of the building and reveal more of the listed Jackson's Warehouse building. The lower volume would be pulled back from Jackson's Warehouse and angled so that the buildings do not look directly into each other.

242 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

The form of the lower volume would follow the line of the Rochdale Canal, reflecting the shape of the site. The volume is intended to be read as a solid element that responds to the mass and solidity of Jacksons warehouses. The colour of this layer would reflect the rich pinks, reds, oranges and brown tones of the adjacent historic warehouses. Windows and ventilation panels would provide vertical punched openings of varying widths with deep reveals enhancing the solidity of the lower layer when viewed obliquely. This would respond well to the mass and simple volumes of the red-brick warehouses along the Rochdale Canal.

The middle layer would be simpler, composed from a single metal material. The tone and sheen would contrast with the matt qualities of the masonry, and add warmth to the tonal palette. This would pick up the tones of the multi-storey car park opposite and adjacent slate roofs. The metal panels would be articulated with a vertical projections between window and ventilation panels providing some texture and visual interest to this layer.

The upper section of the building would be glazed to provide a lighter component. A single planar glass material would be used, such as an uncapped or structural glazed curtain wall system which would reflect the sky and environmental conditions when viewed from ground level and beyond the site. The reflective nature of the glass would contrast with the lower and middle layers and help to visually separate the upper section.

The use of different, high quality materials on each of the 3 layers would articulate and separate them and respond to both scale and context. The materials would reinforce the buildings sculptural form and create visual interest and quality.

A Supplementary Design Statement and Quality Control document has been provided in support of the application to provide the details of how the quality and design intent of the proposed development would be carried throughout the process to the completion of the project.

A condition requiring samples of materials and details of jointing and fixing details and a strategy for quality control would be attached to any permission granted. It is considered therefore, that the proposals would result in high quality building that would be appropriate to its context.

The flat roofs between the geometric volumes would provide an improved visual surface when viewed from both apartments within the development and surrounding buildings

Sustainability

Tall buildings should attain high standards of sustainability because of their high profile and local impact. The application is supported by an Energy Statement and Environmental Standards Statement (ESS). These documents demonstrate that overall the proposals accord with this objective. The ESS sets out, and justifies where necessary, the measures that could be incorporated across the lifecycle of the development to ensure high levels of

243 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 performance and long-term viability in addition to ensuring local planning policy compliance.

The Sustainability Headlines include:

 Energy use would be minimised through passive improvements, low air leakage and thermal bridging, natural day-lighting, low energy light fittings, lighting and thermal zones, and sub metering of each apartment to allow monitoring, target setting and billing.  100% efficient electrical panel heaters to reduce regulated CO2 emissions by 5%.  10kW Photovoltaic array on roof.  Excellent variety of public transport modes, reducing reliance of private cars.  Site located in low flood risk area (Zone 1).  The surface water run-off from the site would be managed to ensure the run off can be attenuated.  Construction materials would be chosen using a waste hierarchy and the Green Guide to housing to reduce environmental impacts resulting from the development.  Specialist waste management contractors would be appointed to manage the segregating and recycling of waste during the construction and operational phases.  The Proposed Development would not adversely affect any statutory or non-statutory designation of nature conservation value.  No net loss of biodiversity.

The development would achieve a minimum of Code 3 for Sustainable Homes, with an aspiration to achieve Code 4 (the current standard required by the Core Strategy). A Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 rating is a score of 57+, a score of 58.95% is the worst case score estimated at planning stages but a final score of between 59.54 and 63.84 is projected. There are a number of constraints which preclude the award of a number of Code credits and whilst the development would secure significant emission rate reductions, beyond the regulatory standard, the calculated dwelling emission rate reduction is below the mandatory Code 4 energy credit criteria (68+ rating).

The site constraints which preclude the award of a number of further credits include that as composting facilities are not practical for a scheme of this size and nature and due to site spatial constraints. No communal external space is provided (therefore there is no space to provide to external composting facilities) and no onsite parking is provided. Credibility of the Design

Buildings of the quality proposed are expensive to build so the standard of architectural quality must be maintained through the process of procurement, detailed design and construction.

The design of the scheme has been developed in consultation with a contractor from the outset. A significant amount of time has been spent developing the proposals and

244 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 carefully costing the design throughout, including the façade costs, with the aim of ensuring that the scheme submitted wouldl be the scheme that is constructed and delivered. The design presented in this application therefore properly reflects a scheme that is agreed, viable and deliverable.

The development team have experience of development within the City and are familiar with the issues associated with developing high quality buildings, including residential schemes, in city centre locations and they have an established track record and capability to deliver a project of exceptional quality. The design team recognises the high profile nature of the site and that the proposals should enhance the experience of existing residents and attract others into this area of the City Centre.

Funding for the scheme is secured and there is a real commitment to deliver the development

Contribution to Improving Permeability, Public Spaces and Facilities

Whilst the site has been landscaped on a temporary basis it has always been a development site. Development would contribute to establishing a critical mass of activity and help to attract people to the area and appreciate the historic environment.

Lighting would be enhanced around the site and along the towpath, creating a well-lit environment to encourage pedestrians to utilise the towpath. The buildings regular form would reinforce the canal corridor, marina and street pattern and ensure that the public realm is properly defined.

Effect on the Local Environment/ Amenity

This examines the impact that the scheme would have on nearby and adjoining occupiers and includes the consideration of issues such as impact on microclimate, daylight, sunlight and overshadowing, air quality, noise and vibration, construction, operations and TV reception.

Wind

A Wind Microclimate report has been produced to assess the potential impact of the development on pedestrian level wind conditions in and around the site. This highlights that the proposed development is well orientated with respect to prevailing southerly and south-south-easterly winds and is substantially sheltered from the stronger south-south-westerly to westerly winds.

It concludes that the proposed development is not expected to have any significant impact on pedestrian level wind conditions in respect ofpedestrian safety and conditions in and around the site would rate as safe for all users. Access in and around the site would be acceptable to pedestrians. In addition no significant cumulative effects with future surrounding developments are expected.

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

245 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

A Sunlight / Daylight assessment of the proposals has been prepared by BRE. The BRE Report 209 "Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight - a guide to good practice" is generally accepted as the industry standard and is used by most local planning authorities to consider the impact of a scheme on sunlight, daylight and overshadowing. The guidance is advisory and there is a need to take account of particular locational circumstances, such as city centres where higher density development is expected and obstruction of natural light to existing buildings is sometimes inevitable.

The report advises that the neighbouring residential properties most likely to be affected by the proposals are Jackson's Warehouse to the north and Vantage Quay to the west and given this has assessed the windows most likely to be affected by the development in each location for loss of daylight, as windows further away from the development or higher up the buildings are anticipated to be less affected.

The report goes on to assess the effect of the proposed against the standard BRE Guidelines. In order to achieve the recommendations in the BRE Report, a window should retain a vertical sky component (VSC) of at least 27%, or where it is lower, a ratio of after/before of 0.8 or more. Of 38 windows analysed at Jackson's Warehouse, 9 would achieve the BRE guidelines and the rest would not. Some of the windows which do not achieve the guidelines are only marginally outside them, having ratios only just below 0.8 or VSCs only just below 27%. However others, the lowest windows closest to the development, rely upon light coming across the development site, as they are close to the boundary.

It is noted that in the case of Jackson's Warehouse any significant building on the application site would have an impact on those windows, in the same way that Vantage Quay affects the windows at the other end of the main elevation. This is demonstrated throughout the report with reference to the relatively marginal differences in effects between the now proposed development and the scheme currently approved under the extant 1998 Planning Permission.

Of 25 windows analysed at Vantage Quay, 10 would be outside the BRE guidelines, but only marginally in most cases. Overall, the development would have a minor adverse impact on Vantage Quay.

Therefore in terms of loss of daylight, the report concludes that the impact of the proposed building is similar to that of the proposed building in the original masterplan and thus there has always been an expectation for these windows to have a similar loss of light

In terms of loss of sunlight , the main elevation of Jackson' s Warehouse faces 90° to due south and this is assessed in the BRE Report for those windows. As the internal arrangement of the rooms served by the windows is not known, all of the windows have been analysed. Vantage Quay and the side elevation of Jackson's Warehouse do not face within 90° of due south and therefore did not require analysis.

In order to achieve the recommendations in BRE Report a window should retain at least 25% of available annual probable sunlight hours (APSH), or where it is lower, a

246 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 ratio of after/before of 0.8 or more. In the winter months, a window should retain at least 5% of available winter sunlight hours.

Nearly all of the windows analysed would retain satisfactory levels of sunlight. One window, the ground floor window nearest the development, would be only just below the guideline with 24%. All of the windows would achieve the BRE guidelines for winter sunlight and the one window which would be below the recommended 5% is already at that level and would not lose any further winter sunlight as a result of the development. The report concludes that overall, the development would have a negligible or minor impact on levels of sunlight received.

Impact on Privacy

The plan layout of the lower volume along the northern edge facing Jacksons Warehouse contains 2no. apartments and each apartment has been designed to face away from Jacksons Warehouse as much as practically possible. The apartment at the north corner has windows for both living space and bedroom that are located along the North West elevation (i.e. facing the warehouse). However, these windows would be located towards the northern edge of the elevation such that they overlook the warehouse stair core or along the access way towards Tariff Street. The apartment at the north-west corner faces towards the marina, with living space and bedroom facing the marina. The smaller bedroom would however have a window that is facing Jacksons Warehouse. This is the worst case window in terms of overlooking.

In considering the worst case window, it is a single bedroom window, and is present in only 4 apartments, there are 12 windows along Jacksons Warehouse (JW) that are located in relatively close proximity, 6 of which are very small windows, 6 of which are larger windows. The larger windows are further away, whilst the smaller windows are directly facing the Tariff Street windows (TSW) in question. The 6 larger JW windows are oblique in plan to the TSW and as such would have a minimal impact. The 6 smaller windows are more directly facing the TSW. However, since the floor levels in JW and Tariff Street are not aligned, these windows would not all correlate to the heights of the Tariff Street windows. Given the above it is considered that the design of the development has been developed to minimise impacts on privacy. The relationship between the proposal and Jacksons Warehouse would reflect the relationship between Vantage Quay and Jacksons Warehouse and in this respect is consistent with the 1998 masterplan

Air Quality

Activity on site during the construction phase may cause dust and particulate matter to be emitted into the atmosphere but any adverse impact is likely to be temporary, short term and of minor adverse significance. A condition would be attached to any consent granted requiring a scheme for the wheels of contractors vehicles leaving the site to be cleaned and the access roads leading to the site swept daily to limit the impact of amount of dust and debris from the site on adjacent occupiers.

Noise and vibration

247 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Whilst the principle of the proposed uses is considered to be acceptable the impact that adjacent noise sources might have on occupiers needs to be considered. The application is supported by a Noise Report and concludes that with appropriate acoustic design of the proposed buildings, acceptable internal noise levels can be achieved.

Construction noise activities would be mitigated in accordance with the appropriate standards for minimising the impact on adjacent buildings, particularly the adjacent residential accommodation. A condition requiring submission and approval of a Construction Management Plan which provides details of mitigation methods that will be put in place to reduce the impact on surrounding residents is capable of being attached to any consent granted.

The level of noise limits and any necessary mitigation measures for the any externally mounted plant and ventilation associated with the building are capable of being conditions of any consent granted.

Access for deliveries and service vehicles would be restricted to daytime hours to mitigate any potential impact on the adjacent student residential accommodation

TV and Radio reception

A baseline television and radio signal survey to determine the potential effects on the local reception of television and radio broadcast services from the proposed development has been submitted which concludes that no adverse impacts have been identified for the reception of any television or radio broadcast network. No interference is expected for any television or radio service and subsequently, no pre or post-construction mitigation measures are required. Overall, the proposed development is expected to have neutral effect on the reception of television and radio broadcast services for local residents.

In assessing the development in the context of the CABE and English Heritage criteria it is considered that the applicant has thoroughly demonstrated that the proposals would meet the requirements of the guidance as well as the policy on Tall Buildings within the Core Strategy and as such the proposal would provide a tall building of a quality acceptable to this site such that the development would be consistent with sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework policies SP1, DM1, T1, EN1, EN2, EN4 EN6, EN9, EN11, EN16, CC4, CC6, CC9 and CC10 of the Core Strategy and saved UDP policies DC26.1 and DC26.2.

Parking, Servicing and Access, Green Travel Plan / Cycling - No parking is proposed as part of the proposals but 30 lease parking spaces for residents are proposed within TCS's adjacent car parks. Vehicular and service access is from Tariff Street, making use of the access way adjacent to Jackson's Warehouse. A Travel Plan which aims to reduce unnecessary car journey's and increase the number of people who walk, cycle and use public transport for journeys has been submitted with the application. This recognises the need to encourage those accessing the development and visitors to travel to work and business by sustainable transport modes and the applicant has indicated their commitment to the development and implementation of a Travel Plan that would promote car sharing,

248 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 cycling, walking, public transport thereby reducing the demand for on-site parking spaces. Any approved Travel Plan would be expected to be fully implemented at all times when the development is in use.

91 cycle parking spaces (one per apartment) would be provided as part of the development. A condition requiring the submission of a parking management strategy should be a condition of any consent granted.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with section 4 and 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Core Strategy Policies SP1, DM1 and T2. Full access and Inclusive Design

Disabled Access - Level access will be provided off Tariff Street and at least 9 of the apartments would be designed to be suitable for disabled people and located adjacent to the access core.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with Core Strategy policy DM1.

Crime and Disorder - It is considered that the increased footfall within the area from the addition to the residential population and the improvements to lighting would improve security and surveillance in the area compared to the current situation. Greater Manchester Police have been involved in pre-application discussions on the scheme. They have provided a crime impact assessment and it is expected to achieve Secured by Design accreditation. A condition requiring that the development seeks to achieve that accreditation is capable of being attached to any consent granted.

In view of the above the proposals are consistent with Core Strategy Policy DM1. Archaeological issues - Given the findings of the Desk Study it is considered that the appropriate mitigation would be to excavate several targeted trial trenches to determine the level of survival. If significant areas of intact archaeology are revealed then a further, final phase of site investigation and recording would be required. If only fragmentary remains are located by the trial trenches then an archaeological watching brief during development ground works would be sufficient, and this would be targeted on key features such as the original canal wall. This work can be secured by a condition that would be attached to any consent granted.

In view of the above the proposals would be consistent with section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC20 contained in the UDP and policy CC9 of the emerging Core Strategy

Biodiversity/Wildlife Issues - Whilst the application site has served its purpose as a 'temporary' public space the intention has always been as set out in the Piccadilly Basin Masterplan and as evidenced by the previous planning consents on the site for this brownfield site to be redeveloped. It is also noted that the site is not a public park and has been damaged by Canada Geese.

Landscaping, including green or brown roofs would encourage a wider variety of wildlife to use the site than currently occurs. Contractors will be observant for protected species and all nesting birds. Should any species be found during

249 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 construction, all site works should cease and further ecological advice should be sought with a view to a detailed method statement and programme of mitigation measures being prepared and implemented.

The canal adjacent to the site has been assesses for aquatic life, including notable plant species. The canal has vertical sides which would not allow ingress or egress by less mobile water based species such as amphibians. There was no macrophyte (water plant) growth adjacent to the site. The higher water flow past the site associated with the proximity of a dock would reduce the potential for plant species which are not rooted to remain on site and rooting plants are unlikely to take hold on the vertical artificial sides to the canal and boat/ water movement would disturb those rooted on the canal bed.

It has been noted that the water column was turbid with profuse algal growth which will be associated with elevated nutrient levels and sunlight. This algal growth would further impinge upon water quality and the ability for more notable plant species to colonise. Shading of the canal as a result of the proposal will result in less profuse growth of algae and in the backwater associated with the dock the potential for more notable aquatic plant species to colonise.

It is not considered that shading of the canal would have appreciable negative impacts on its ecology, and for the above reasons, shading is in fact likely to enhance it.

The proposed development would have no direct adverse effect on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites and the adjacent Canal would not be directly affected by the development and would be protected through the construction phase.

In view of the above the proposals are considered to be consistent with policy EN15 of the Core Strategy.

Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Strategy - The application sites lie within Flood zone 1 and is deemed to be classified as a low risk site. In view of the above the proposals are consistent with section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy policy EN14.

Contaminated Land Issues - A phase 1 Desk Study & Phase 2 Geo- environmental Report which assesses geo-environmental information have been prepared based on desktop / published sources, a site walkover survey and a review of intrusive investigation and remediation reports. These conclude that in its current condition, and with no mitigation measures, the site presents a low risk to future site users and construction workers from contamination. A condition requiring that a full site investigation is carried out and that appropriate remediation measures are submitted and agreed could be attached to any consent granted and on this basis the proposal is considered to be consistent with policy EN18 of the Core Strategy.

Reponses to Consultation Responses

Panels Comments - It is considered that the majority of the panels concerns have been dealt with above. The proposals have been designed and developed in

250 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 collaboration with heritage consultants and following consultation with English Heritage (EH). The massing and scheme design has been developed to respond, in part, to EH comments.

A Supplementary Design Statement and Quality Control document has been provided in support of the application providing details of how the quality and design intent of the proposed development would be maintained to completion of the project. This would be a condition of any consent granted.

Head of Highway Services -The level of parking spaces is discussed below. A condition is recommended requiring the submission of management arrangements to fully address residents parking requirements. The levels proposed at this stage are considered to be acceptable.

Canal and Rivers Trust - It is considered that the concerns raised have been dealt with above. Conditions would be attached to any consent granted requiring: remediation of and protection of the site to reduce the risks to water quality within the canal; mitigation measures to prevent pollution of the waterway or damage to the canal infrastructure; and, an appropriate method of surface water drainage.

Objectors comments

It is considered that the majority of the objectors concerns have been dealt with above. However the following additional comments are made. Design

A number of residents have expressed concern about the quantum of development. The scale and height of the building is larger than its immediate neighbours but this of itself does not mean that it is unacceptable. The impact on residential amenity and on adjacent buildings including heritage assets would be acceptable and the scheme would be consistent with the original masterplan.

It is likely that more high density schemes will be brought forward in the City Centre in order to deliver the City Councils housing targets over the next 20 years. High density development within the City Centre is supported by policies within the Core Strategy.

Impact on Regeneration / Viability Issues

The proposal would have a positive impact on the regeneration of Ancoats. Further development in the City Centre, including its Northern Quarter and the Piccadilly Basin area, is vital to the City's economic growth strategy. This would extend development and activity from the core to the city centre fringe and help to connect Ancoats with the City Centre.

Whilst there may be other sites within the City Centre with development potential, this is a development site and has been identified for residential development for some time.

251 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Some concerns are raised about the lack of active ground floor use. These are encouraged, particularly in locations where they are viable or in areas where there is an established public function, but there is no absolute policy requirement that every building should have retail at the ground floor.

Amenity / Crime and Disorder/ Impact on Biodiversity

It is inevitable that the development of the site, including its affect on views, would have an impact on occupiers in the immediate area. It must be accepted that one does not purchase the view with the property.

The temporary treatment of the site was undertaken in order to reduce fly tipping and anti social behaviour. Whilst it is understandable that residents and those who use the space may regret its loss, the landscaping has always been a temporary measure. The NPPF Section 74 refers to the consideration of the loss of open space. The application site is not an open space but is a temporary landscaped area that was laid out to improve amenity for adjacent residents for a temporary period pending development of the site, not to create any permanent open space. The site is a development site and one which benefits from a live consent which could be implemented at any time. It is noted that New Islington community park, as well as a 4-acre water park, is around 350m from the site.

Jacksons Warehouse would at the nearest distance be approximately 7m from the proposed development not 3m as one objector has suggested.

The illumination of the upper levels would be at a level so as to not disturb residents and specifications of lighting and lighting levels are capable of being a condition of any consent granted.

The applicants have confirmed an intention to put measures in place to safeguard the cobbled road beside Jacksons Warehouse and this would be a condition of any consent granted. The path way down from Tariff Street (opposite Pure Gym) to the canal basin would remain open for access to Jacksons Warehouse.

Whilst the proposal includes Saturday work, starting at 8.30 am, with the potential addition of Sundays and Bank Holidays by agreement with the Council, the hours of operation for construction works are in line with Manchester City Council guidance and represent standard operating procedures for construction works.

In terms of comments about to vitamin D deficiency for some residents within Vantage Quay as a result of loss of light, Vitamin D is only produced by the human body as a result of exposure to direct sunlight and the new development would not impact on this.

The applicants have confirmed that a right of access was granted along the cobbled street to the side of Jacksons Warehouse leading to the site at all times with or without vehicles in the transfer of land for Jacksons Warehouse

The applicant has noted that in previous developments in the area, the proximity to the city centre and sustainable public transport connections (train, Metrolink and bus

252 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 networks) has reduced the demand for residential car parking. They have advised that at Jackson's Warehouse, 60% of residents requested a leased parking space in the first year, followed by only 11% in the second year. Provision is made in the development to support more use of cycles by residents. The Tariff Street residential development would offer up to 30. parking spaces (1in3)) for residents to lease in a car park close to the site.

Procedural issues

The pre-consultation undertaken by the applicant was in accordance with National guidance and the City Council's local guidance, and indeed the applicant has suggested that the application submission was delayed in order to allow that process to be properly completed. The details of the process are set out in section 4 of the submitted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The submitted SCI seeks to capture all of the key issues raised during that consultation process and to explain how those points have been addressed. In this case, where comments such as re- designing the scheme have not been addressed, reasons have been provided as to why it is considered inappropriate to do so, and conversely why the submitted design is considered to be an appropriate response to the site. There is no legal requirement for pre application consultation for this development.

Whilst the previous 2007 scheme was considered appropriate for the reasons set out at that time in the Committee Report, this does not suggest that it is the only appropriate form of development on the site. This application has been considered on its own merits and the design has taken many factors into consideration including amenity and the impact on heritage assets including Jackson's Warehouse. English Heritage have advised that a building on this site could improve the setting of the listed buildings by creating a sense of enclosure to frame views of the buildings including Jackson's Warehouse and it has been concluded that the design is such that the proposed building would not be detrimental to the character or setting of the grade II* listed building.

Other

Structural Engineers have been involved in the development of the design alongside the Architect. The foundations would be a series of bored piles transferring the building loads directly down to the underlying bearing strata under the footprint of the site. The Engineer appointed was also the structural engineer that designed the Jackson's Warehouse development and the canal basin, and is familiar with the foundations to those structures. In the detail design stage, the Engineer would satisfy themselves that the new building would not subject Jackson's Warehouse and the canal basin to loads that it cannot withstand.

The impact of the scheme on property values is not a planning issue and it is not the purpose of the planning system to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. However, the site has been identified for development since 1998.

253 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

The tenure and management of the building is not something that the planning process can control but it is understood that the apartments would be for sale and that a management company would be appointed to manage it.

Hoardings were erected around the site and the applicant has stated that the purpose of these was to deal with complaints received about security and anti-social behaviour on the site. However these have now been removed pending determination of this application.

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 the 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 Core Strategy and saved polices of the Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Planning, Building Control & Licensing 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 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. She 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.

Recommendation

Article 31 Declaration

Officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner to seek solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application. This has included on going discussions about the form and design of the developments and pre application advice about the information required to be submitted to support the application.

Conditions to be attached to the decision

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:

(a) Site and location plans 7316-A-G100-XP-AL-099, 00-0099 and F100,XP-AL-099;

254 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

(b) Dwgs7316-A-G100-P-AL-099, G200-P-00-099, 7316-A-G200--01-099, 7316-A- G200--02-099, 7316-A-G200--03-099, 7316-A-G200--04-099, 7316-A-G200--05-099, 7316-A-G200--06-099, 7316-A-G200--07-099, 7316-A-G200--08-099, 7316-A-G200-- 09-099, 7316-A-G200--10-099 and 7316-A-G200--01-099;

(c) Dwgs7316-A-G100--S-AL-099, 7316-A-G200--AA-099 and 7316-A-G200--BB- 099;

(d) Dwgs7316-A-G200--E-SW-099, 7316-A-G200--E-E-099, 7316-A-G200--E-NE- 099, 7316-A-G200--E-NW-099;

(e) Dwgs7316-A-G251--D-00-099, 7316-A-G251--D-T1-099, 7316-A-G251--D-T2-099 and 7316-A-G251--D-T3-099;

(f) Dwgs 7316-A-G240-P-RF-099 (version stamped as received on 19-08-14), 7316- A-G200-RCP-09-099

(h) Recommendations in Crime Impact Assessment Version B dated May 2014.

(i) Acoustic insulation measures detailed in BDP's Environmental Noise Assessment dated May 2014; and

(j) Details of level of lighting contained in Deloittes e-mail dated 28th August 2014

Reason - To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Pursuant to Core Strategy SP 1, CC3, H1, H8, CC5 , CC6 , CC7, CC9 , CC10, T1, T2 , EN1, EN2 , EN3 , EN6 , EN 8, EN9, EN11, EN14, EN15, EN 16 , EN17, EN18, EN19, DM 1 and PA1 saved Unitary Development Plan polices DC18.1 DC19.1 , DC20 and DC26.1.

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, as specified in policies SP1 and DM1 of Core Strategy.

4) 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

255 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 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.

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 policies DM1 and EN18 of the Core Strategy.

5) The consent hereby granted is for a scheme in which details have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that surface water from the site will be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer and no surface water discharged either directly or indirectly into the combined sewer network.

Reason - Pursuant to National Planning Policy Framework policies (PPS 1 (22) and PPS 25 (F8))

6) The development hereby approved shall not commence unless and until a Construction Management Plan, including details of the following

*Hours of site opening / operation * A Site Waste Management Plan, * Air Quality Plan; *A plan layout showing areas of public highway agreed with the Highway Authority for use in association with the development during construction; *The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; *Loading and unloading of plant and materials; *Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; *Construction and demolition methods to be used, including the use of cranes; *The erection and maintenance of security hoarding; *Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction and;

256 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

*A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; *Details of and position of any proposed cranes to be used on the site and any lighting; *A detailed programme of the works and risk assessments; *Temporary traffic management measures to address any necessary bus re-routing and bus stop closures. *Details on the timing of construction of scaffolding, *A Human Impact Management Plan, *Details of how access to adjacent premises would be managed to ensure clear and safe routes into buildings are maintained at all times. has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

The approved CMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and in the interests of the amenity of the area, pursuant to policies EN15, EN16, EN17 and EN18 of the Core Strategy and Guide to Development 2 (SPG)

7) Before any development commences, the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority: (a) Samples and specifications of all materials to be used on all external elevations of the development along with jointing and fixing details; (b) A strategy for quality control management; and (c) Final details of the interfaces within the volumes as set out in the Planning Submission Addendum dated August 2014

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 SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy.

8) 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 secured by design accreditation.

Reason - To reduce the risk of crime pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy and to reflect the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

9) Before any development commences, final details of the proposed landscaping works including the following:

257 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

(a) A strategy for the planting of street trees within the pavements on Tariff Street including details of overall numbers, size, species and planting specification, constraints to further planting and details of on going maintenance; and (b) Details of hard and soft landscaping and canal side boundary treatments. 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 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 or a suitable alternative to 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 Core Strategy policies SP1, DM1, EN1, EN9 and EN15 of the emerging Core Strategy

10) Before any development commences, a scheme for the storage and disposal of refuse shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. This shall include A Waste Management Strategy which should outline the following:

(a)Details of stores for both waste and recycling, including any plans and designs (b)Further detail required to show how the above capacities can be incorporated and providing details of the store itself, including cleaning and ventilation. (c)Details of number and capacity of bins proposed and collection frequency

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 the amenities of the occupiers nearby properties in order to comply with Core Strategy policies SP1 and DM1.

11) 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.

Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential accommodation, pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy.

12) Before the development hereby approved is first occupied a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority. In this condition a Travel Plan means a document which includes:

258 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 i) the measures proposed to be taken to reduce dependency on the private car by residents and those [attending or] employed in the development ii) a commitment to surveying the travel patterns of residents during the first three months of use of the development and thereafter from time to time iii) mechanisms for the implementation of the measures to reduce dependency on the private car iv) measures for the delivery of specified travel plan services v) measures to monitor and review the effectiveness of the Travel Plan in achieving the objective of reducing dependency on the private car

Within six months of the first use of the development, a revised Travel Plan which takes into account the information about travel patterns gathered pursuant to item (ii) above shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. Any Travel Plan which has been approved by the City Council as local planning authority shall be implemented in full at all times when the development hereby approved is in use.

Reason - To assist promoting the use of sustainable forms of travel , pursuant to policies SP1, T2 and DM1 of the Core Strategy and the Guide to Development in Manchester SPD (2007).

13) The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating of at least three star sustainability rating under the code for sustainable homes for those elements of the development which are residential in nature. A post construction review certificate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority within 6 months of the building hereby approved being first occupied.

Reason - In order to minimise the environmental impact of the development pursuant to policies SP1, T1-T3, EN4-EN7 and DM1 of the Core Strategy, policies ER13 and DP3 of Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13) and the principles contained within The Guide to Development in Manchester SPD (2007) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14) 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, 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 Core Strategy policies SP1 and DM1.

15) No part of the development shall be occupied unless and until details of a parking management strategy for residents who do not have a parking space within the

259 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014 development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority.

Reason - The development does not provide sufficient car parking facilities and in order to provide alternative arrangements (e.g. parking leases with car parking companies; car sharing; or car pool arrangement) for the needs of future residents whom may need to use a motorcar and Policies DM1 and T1.

16) Deliveries, servicing and collections including waste collections (not including those which would take place as part of the construction phase) shall not take place outside of the following hours:

07.30 to 20.00, Monday to Saturday

10.00 to 18.00 Sundays

Reason - In interests of residential amenity in order to reduce noise and general disturbance in accordance with saved policy DC26 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester and policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy.

17) The details of an emergency telephone contact number for shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location on the site from the commencement of development until construction works are complete.

Reason - To prevent detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residents and in the interests of local amenity in order to comply with policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy.

18) The apartments hereby approved shall be used only as private dwellings (which description shall not include serviced apartments/apart hotels or similar uses where sleeping accommodation (with or without other services) is provided by way of trade for money or money's worth and occupied by the same person for less than ninety consecutive nights) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995, or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification).

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbourhood by ensuring that other uses which could cause a loss of amenity such as serviced apartments/apart hotels do not commence without prior approval pursuant to Core Strategy policies SP1 and DM1 and to ensure the permanent retention of the accommodation for normal residential purposes.

19) No development shall take place until the applicant or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works to be undertaken in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The WSI shall cover the following:

260 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

1. A phased programme and methodology of investigation and recording to include: - an archaeological watching brief during development ground works - a contingency for archaeological recording of any significant remains that are exposed 2. A programme for post investigation assessment to include: - analysis of the site investigation records and finds - production of a final report on the significance of the archaeological and historical interest represented. 3. Provision for dissemination of the analysis and report on the site investigation commensurate with the significance of the results 4. Provision for archive deposition of the report, finds and records of the site investigation. 5. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the approved WSI.

Reason: In accordance with NPPF Section 12, Paragraph 141 - To record and advance understanding of heritage assets to be lost and to make information about the archaeological heritage interest publicly accessible

20) Before development commences details of appropriate mitigation measures to prevent pollution of the waterway or other damage to the canal infrastructure or its users during the construction of the proposed development, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the Canal & River Trust. The approved measures shall be fully implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason

To prevent any detriment to the Rochdale Canal and its users, and avoid damage to or contamination of the waterway and ground water from wind blow, seepage or spillage at the site in accordance with adopted Manchester Core Strategy Policy EN 9 .

21) Before development commences a detailed scheme for the disposal of surface water run-off shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Canal & River Trust. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of the building.

Reason

To prevent the potential for pollution of the Rochdale Canal, in accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted Manchester Core Strategy DPD.

22) Before development commences the following details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority:

261 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

(a) The proposed lighting scheme including a report to demonstrate that the proposed lighting levels would not have any adverse impact on the amenity of residents within this and adjacent developments;

(b) Details of measures to protect the adjacent cobbled road area during construction works;

Reason - In the interests of visual and residential amenity pursuant to Core Strategy policies SP1, CC9, EN3 and DM1 of the Core Strategy and saved UDP policy DC19.1.

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: 106021/FO/2014/C2 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 held by the Planning Division.

The following residents, businesses and other third parties in the area were consulted/notified on the application:

Contaminated Land Section Highway Services Environmental Health Neighbourhood Team Leader (Arboriculture) Corporate Property Contaminated Land Section Housing Strategy Division Travel Change Team Greater Manchester Police English Heritage (NW Region) Environment Agency Transport For Greater Manchester Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service Greater Manchester Ecology Unit United Utilities Water PLC Canal & River Trust Wildlife Trust 2 Minster Close, Greetland, Halifax, HX4 8QW apt 6 jacksons warehouse, 20 tariff street, manchester, m1 2fj 42 Jacksons Warehouse, Manchester, M1 2FJ 50 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Marco House, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FF Flat 1, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 2, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 3, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 4, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 5, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 6, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ

262 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Flat 7, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 8, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 9, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 10, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 11, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 12, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 13, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 14, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 15, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 16, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 17, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 18, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 19, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 20, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 21, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 22, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 23, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 24, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 25, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 26, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 27, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 28, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 29, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 30, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 31, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 32, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 33, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 34, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 35, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 36, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 37, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 38, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 39, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 40, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 41, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 42, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Apartment 1, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 10, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 11, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 12, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 14, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 15, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 16, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 17, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 18, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 19, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 2, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 20, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 21, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 22, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED

263 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Apartment 23, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 24, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 25, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 26, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 27, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 28, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 29, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 3, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 30, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 31, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 32, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 33, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 34, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 35, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 36, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 37, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 38, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 39, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 4, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 40, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 41, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 42, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 43, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 44, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 45, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 46, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 47, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 48, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 49, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 5, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 50, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 51, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 52, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 53, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 54, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 55, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 56, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 57, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 58, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 6, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 7, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 8, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 9, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 100, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 101, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 102, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 103, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 104, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 105, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 106, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER

264 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Apartment 107, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 108, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 109, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 110, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 111, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 112, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 113, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 114, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 115, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 116, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 117, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 118, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 59, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 60, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 61, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 62, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 63, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 64, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 65, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 66, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 67, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 68, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 69, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 70, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 71, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 72, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 73, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 74, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 75, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 76, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 77, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 78, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 79, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 80, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 81, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER 48 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 82, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 83, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 84, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 85, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 86, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 87, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 88, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 89, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 90, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 91, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 92, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 94, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 95, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 96, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER

265 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Apartment 97, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 98, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 99, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Unit 1, Jackson Warehouse, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2EP Basement, 17 China Lane, Manchester, M1 2EL Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER 17 China Lane, Manchester, M1 2EL Apartment 93, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER 30 Tariff Street, Manchester, M4 2FJ 29 Jacksons Warehouse, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ 48 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED 40 Jacksons Warehouse, manchester, m1 2fj 81 Vantage Quay, Manchester, m1 2fj 36 Jacksons Warehouse, 20 tariff st, Manchester, M12FJ 2 Jacksons Warehouse, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Apartment 80, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Apartment 23 Vantage Quay, 3 brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED 4 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, M1 2ED 2 Jacksons Warehouse, 22 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 1FJ 40 Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, manchester, m1 2fj Flat 36, 20 Tariff Street, Jacksons Warehouse, Manchester, M12FJ 55. Vantage Quay, 3. Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED 14 Jacksons Warehouse, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2JJ

Representations were received from the following third parties:

Contaminated Land Section Hattwood House, Llanbedr D.C, Ruthin, Denbighshire, LL151UT 2 Minster Close, Greetland, Halifax, HX4 8QW apt 6 jacksons warehouse, 20 tariff street, manchester, m1 2fj 42 Jacksons Warehouse, Manchester, M1 2FJ 50 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Flat 18, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 23, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Flat 30, Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Apartment 30, Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 75, Vantage Quay, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER 48 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED 29 Jacksons Warehouse, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ 48 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED 40 Jacksons Warehouse, manchester, m1 2fj 81 Vantage Quay, Manchester, m1 2fj 36 Jacksons Warehouse, 20 tariff st, Manchester, M12FJ 2 Jacksons Warehouse, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ Apartment 80, 5 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ER Jutland House Jutland House, Jutland Street, Manchester, M1 2BE Jutland House, Jutland Street, Manchester, M1 2BE 111 Piccadilly, M1 2HY Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2FJ

266 Manchester City Council Item 10 Planning and Highways Committee 11 September 2014

Urban Bubble, Swan Square, 79 Tib St, M4 1LS Apartment 23 Vantage Quay, 3 brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED 4 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, M1 2ED 2 Jacksons Warehouse, 22 Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 1FJ 40 Jacksons Warehouse, 20 Tariff Street, manchester, m1 2fj Flat 36, 20 Tariff Street, Jacksons Warehouse, Manchester, M12FJ 55. Vantage Quay, 3. Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED Apartment 53 Vantage Quay, 3 Brewer Street, Manchester, M1 2ED 14 Jacksons Warehouse, Tariff Street, Manchester, M1 2JJ

Relevant Contact Officer : Angela Leckie Telephone number : 0161 234 4651 Email : [email protected]

267