Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

Application Number Date of Appln Committee Date Ward 106429/FO/2014/N1 28 July 2014 13 Nov 2014 Ward

Proposal Installation of single storey temporary classroom, retention and renewal of temporary building under ref. 095785/FO/2011/N1 and retrospective application for modular cloakroom building all for a period of three years Location ETZ Chaim High School For Boys, 89 Middleton Road, Crumpsall, , M8 4JY, Applicant ETZ Chaim High School For Boys , 89 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY, Agent Bernard Joseph Associates Ltd, PO Box 383, Salford, M8 2DN

Description

The application relates to a large, detached, three-storey Victorian villa set in large grounds fronting Middleton Road in the Crumpsall area of the City. Historically the building was the Belmont Public house, the building is currently occupied by the Eitz Chaim High School. Although the building is neither listed nor in a conservation area, it remains an impressive example of Victorian architecture and it is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and Middleton Road itself.

Both pedestrian and vehicular access is gained directly from Middleton Road leading into a crescent shaped driveway in front of the building enclosed by robust stone walls with decorative features. The space around the building is hard surfaced to provide surface car parking to the front of the site and a playground to the rear that stretches to the rear gardens of the properties on Cedric Road. There are currently temporary modular buildings being used as additional classrooms and a cloakroom on the site.

Planning History There have been several planning applications over the years relating to the proposal site:-

1) 050685- Change of use from Public House to non residential Education facility. This was approved on the 8th November 1996. Condition number 8 stated that there should be no more than 80 children present at any one time.

2) 074339- Outline application for the siting of a part 2 part single storey building to form school following demolition of existing building. This was determined as not proceeded with 23rd June 2005.

3) 080395- Erection of a 6 metre high boundary fence to the rear of the site. This was approved 22nd of February 2007.

4) 091299- Erection of a temporary portacabin to the northern elevation to create additional teaching facilities for a period of three years. This was refused 16th November 2009.

15 Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

5) 092021- Siting of a temporary classroom for a period of 3 years. This was approved 21st April 2010.

6) 095785- Erection of a single storey temporary classroom building to rear of existing school for a period of three years. This was approved 16th August 2011.

7) 104084- Retrospective application for the retention of a modular cloakroom portable building for a temporary period of 3 years and erection of a canopy to form a covered play area. This was withdrawn 24th January 2014 with a view to finding a more acceptable permanent solution to the temporary structures.

No application to vary planning condition number 8 attached to previously approved ref 050685 (that restricts the number of pupils to no more than 80) has ever been submitted.

This planning application seeks to regularise the situation relating to the existing temporary buildings along with the replacement of the single width temporary building that currently sits alongside the Haversham Court boundary with a double width temporary building. An application for the erection of a part single, part two and part three storey extension to the side and rear to provide additional classroom space together with removal of existing chimney at roof level is being considered elsewhere on the agenda under planning reference 106327.

The area in which the site is located is primarily in residential use, with blocks of apartments on either side of the site in the form of Haversham Court and Lomond Lodge, and semi-detached suburban housing to rear (Cedric Road). There are however a number of non-residential buildings in close proximity to the site such as the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue on the opposite side of Middleton Road.

The applicant is seeking consent for the installation of a single storey temporary modular cloakroom and three single storey temporary modular classrooms (2 of the classrooms are retained buildings as is the cloakroom). The double width single storey modular classroom along the Haversham Court boundary is a proposed installation, it is proposed in the same location as a previously refused smaller temporary building ref 091299/FO/2009/N1

Consultations

Neighbours Three letters of objection from local residents have been received. Their concerns are based on the following grounds:

1 The new single storey temporary classroom is in fact yet another portacabin and would represent the fourth temporary cabin on this site. The first permission expired on the 30th of April 2013. Nearly 16 months have passed and they have made no effort to remove that cabin. The second cabin received consent and permission expired 16th August 2014 and it should have been removed. The third cabin complete with roof structure was installed 10th

16 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

September 2013 Planning permission was not obtained. The new cabins are located on exactly the same part of the site as the rejected application except they are proposed longer and wider than the earlier application. It would block the area that would be used for emergency access to the northern side of the building, and the area to the southern side is not wide enough for access from the emergency services. This access to the north had to be used when there was an incident at the school which involved the attendance of the emergency services and a hydraulic lift. None of this would be possible with the proposed layout. Should there be a fire this could possibly spread to the flats over the fence.

The residents have already had their environment polluted by up to three illegal portacabins over four years. Now the school wants to install a fourth unsightly structure. And this again is intended to be sited towards the Haversham Court area of the school. A previous application was refused in a similar location due to residential disamenity on the occupants of Haversham Court, and we do not believe that this one should be viewed any differently. All four cabins would be clearly visible from Haversham Court and two of them would be clearly visible from Middleton Road. The proposed location is within about 5 metres of the bedrooms and bathrooms of Haversham Court with the additional noise and disruption being suffered by the residents. In addition the school has installed floodlights to the football pitch which are also causing light pollution for the local residents.

We believe that the current application should be refused for the same reason. This particularly applies given the proliferation of temporary features that now exist. The presence of four separate portacabins appears to be over dominant in a predominantly residential area.

2 In the past year much renovation work has taken place to the school building, including the insertion of numerous roof windows. The related rooms appear to have been in regular use as classrooms in addition to the existing classrooms. The school has been in use over 20 years and yet it is only since 2009 that the need for the additional space has arisen in the form of various cabins. Yet throughout this time the school has been officially limited to 80 pupils. If they have adhered to this limit why is there the need for this additional accommodation.

3 The school routinely opens outside of the hours specified in planning conditions.

4 There are existing noise and nuisance problems associated with the pupils of the school and if the numbers were to increase this would make the noise issue much worse. When it is religious festival days there is a lot of music and the whole school are in the yard. Even with all the windows closed the noise can still be heard. There is already a loss of privacy from pupils looking into the house, and very bright security lights are an issue.

5 As they obviously want a much bigger school than is compatible with this site, perhaps relocation to a more suitable location should be encouraged.

17 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

North Manchester Regeneration Team North Manchester Regeneration team do not support this application for the following reasons:

It would appear that the school is continuing to increase school places with insufficient forward planning. It is not considered that this proposal to install modular units for a period of 3 years is a satisfactory solution. Also, the position of the unit at the side of the property will have a negative impact on the property next door, and, they will be seen from users of Middleton Road, which will not fit in with the local area.

Would also have concerns about access to the rear of the site, as the installation of this unit will block the existing access.

Would also like to re-emphasise that suggestions and ideas recommended to the architect during the meeting held in February 2014, have not been considered within this proposal.

Highways Development Management Any significant comments will be reported to committee.

Strategic Area and Citywide Support Manage Should the application be approved it is recommended that conditions relating to hours of operation, noise, acoustic insulation of the building, acoustic insulation of equipment and fumes be attached to any consent granted.

Issues Local Development Framework The principal document within the framework is the Manchester Core Strategy which sets out the spatial vision for the City and includes strategic policies for development during the period 2012 – 2027. 'The Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2012 -2027 ("the Core Strategy") was adopted by the City Council on 11th July 2012. It is the key document in Manchester's Local Development Framework. The Core Strategy replaces significant elements of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as the document that sets out the long term strategic planning policies for Manchester's future development.

A number of UDP policies have been saved until replaced by further development plan documents to accompany the Core Strategy. Planning applications in Manchester must be decided in accordance with the Core Strategy, saved UDP policies and other Local Development Documents.'

The following policies within the Core Strategy are considered relevant: Policy SP1 refers to the key spatial principles which will guide the strategic development of Manchester together with core development principles. It is stated that developments in all parts of the city should create well designed places which enhance or create character, make a positive contribution to the health, safety and

18 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014 well being of residents, consider the needs of all members of the community and protect and enhance the built environment. Further, development should seek to minimise emissions, ensure the efficient use of natural resources, reuse previously developed land wherever possible, improve access to jobs, services and open space and provide good access to sustainable transport provision.

Policy DM1 states that new development should have regard to more specific issues for which more detailed guidance may be given within supplementary planning documents. Issues include: the appropriate siting and appearance of development, the impact upon the surrounding area, the effects on amenity, accessibility, community safety and crime prevention, health, the adequacy of internal accommodation and amenity space and refuse storage/collection.

Policy EN1- Design Principles and Strategic Character Areas- development in Manchester will be expected to follow the seven principles of urban design, as identified in national planning guidance and listed above and have regard to the strategic character area in which the development is located. Opportunities for good design to enhance the overall image of the City should be fully realised, particularly on major radial and orbital road and rail routes. Design and Access Statements submitted with proposals for new development must clearly detail how the proposed development addresses the design principles, reinforces and enhances the local character of that part of the City and supports the achievement of the Core Strategy Strategic Objectives.

Policy EN3- states that - throughout the City, the Council will encourage development that complements and takes advantage of the distinct historic and heritage features of its districts and neighbourhoods. New developments must be 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, including scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, conservation areas and archaeological remains. Proposals which enable the re-use of heritage assets will be encouraged where they are considered consistent with the significance of the heritage asset. Historic sites and areas of particular heritage value should be both safeguarded for the future and, where possible, enhanced both for their own heritage merits and as part of wider heritage regeneration proposals.

Policy E3.3- (saved policy) states that the Council will upgrade the appearance of the City’s major radial and orbital roads and rail routes. This will include improvements to the appearance of adjacent premises; encouraging new development of the highest quality; and ensuring that landscape schemes are designed to minimise litter problems. 89 Middleton Road is an impressive example of Victorian architecture, and it is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and Middleton Road itself which is designated as an environmental improvement corridor under policy E3.3 of the Unitary Development Plan

The Guide to Development in Manchester (SPG/SPD) (2007) contains core principles to guide developers. The document offers design advice and sets out the City Council's aspirations and vision for future development and contains core principles to guide developers to produce high quality and inclusive design. The

19 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014 principles that development should seek to achieve, include, character and context, continuity, and enclosure, ease of movement, quality of the public realm, diversity, legibility and adaptability.

National Planning Policy Framework 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 and where the development is absent or relevant policies are out-of-date, to grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF.

Paragraph 17 outlines the need to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.

Paragraphs 57 and 58 state that -The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Development should respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;

Paragraph 135 states the effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. It is considered that the Main building itself is of considerable architectural merit and plays an important role in defining the historical development of the area. As such it makes an extremely positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area. What must be considered is the impact that the temporary buildings have upon the character and setting of the building and the wider area within which it is located.

The issues relating to the merits of the proposed development are discussed elsewhere in the report.

Principle – The City Council as Local Planning Authority have worked with the school and its representatives with a view to securing a modest extension to the rear of the existing property to provide appropriate and adequate space for the purposes of the educational establishment, this being for the previously approved number of pupils. This would enable the removal of the temporary structures that are both currently and proposed on the site, and, that are the subject of this application. However, the location of the temporary buildings has not been given due consideration, and it is also considered that a three year period would be too long given the cumulative

20 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014 period of time that the cabins have already occupied the site. As such it is considered that neither the proposed siting nor the number of cabins is acceptable in principle.

In addition, there are significant concerns surrounding the temporary modular buildings, particularly due to the relationship between the temporary buildings and adjoining properties and the impact this would have upon residential amenity.

Residential Amenity – The current application seeks to retain/ renew and add to the temporary buildings on the site. There is already a history of approvals for temporary structures on the site which were only approved at the time whilst a long term plan was approved for a suitable solution to the accommodation problem. However, rather than solve the problem, it has been added to by the increase in the number of pupils attending the school without first having permanent solutions in place, or varying the condition attached to the original application that restricted the numbers of pupils to 80 at any one time. This has meant therefore that the increase in the temporary modular buildings has become a necessity. Due to the residential nature of the properties within the immediate vicinity, this being to both sides and the rear, it is maintained, that to intensify activity at the property would have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of nearby residential occupants as a consequence of increased activity, comings and goings, noise and disturbance.

The existing use of the property already exceeds the permitted number of pupils (80) approved by way of a condition attached to planning reference 050685/FU/NORTH1/96 which was for the change of use of the Belmont Public House to a non residential establishment. An application is required to be submitted that seeks to vary the condition to allow for up to 130 pupils on the site at any one time. To date this variation application has not been received for consideration.

In addition, there are concerns surrounding the physical impact that the temporary buildings will have upon neighbouring occupiers, particularly the occupants of Haversham Court, as the double width modular building proposed to the northern elevation would sit very close to the boundary fence with the apartment block.

Overall, it is maintained that as a result of both the physical effects of the proposed temporary buildings and the potential for increased occupancy of the buildings, there would be an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of nearby residents.

Visual Amenity – Whilst it is acknowledged that three of the temporary buildings are to the rear of the site and would not be seen within the street scene along Middleton Road, the double width additional temporary classroom would. All four temporary buildings can be seen from Haversham Court. It is considered that the current proposals have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity and character of the building itself, the area within which it is located, and the visual amenity of nearby residential occupants.

Design - The temporary modular buildings are of a standard design, and, do not sit comfortably within the context of the red brick Victorian villa that is the existing school. The temporary buildings occupy the majority of the full width of the existing building to the rear, and the full length of the site to the northern elevation. The dimensions of the temporary buildings are as follows:

21 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

 Cloakroom- 9.8m length by 3m width.  Classroom 1- 12m length by 3m width.  Classroom 2- 6m length by 3 m width  Classroom 3- 12m length by 6.9m width.

Whilst it is acknowledged that 3 of the units can’t be seen within the context of the street scene, the third classroom can be seen in both the context of the street scene and the context of the Victorian Villa and the design of the temporary building has an unsympathetic relationship with the existing building.

On the basis of the information submitted, it is considered that the proposed development would have a negative visual impact on the character and appearance of the area contrary to policies EN1, EN3 and DM1 of Manchester Core Strategy, the guidance given in 'A Guide to Development in Manchester' and national guidance expressed in NPPF Delivering Sustainable Communities.

Intensification of the use and the impact on residential amenity - When consent was initially granted for a change of use from a public house to a non-residential school in 1996, a condition was attached to that approval requiring no more than 80 children to be present on site at any one time in order to protect the quality of life of neighbouring residents and to enable the City Council to assess the adequacy of space within the site for such a use. The current application is largely driven by the need to accommodate a large increase in the number of pupils on site. For which a large extension is proposed. Indeed, the applicant has stated in the Design and Access Statement that consent is sought for 130 pupils, more than 60% greater than the amount that is currently permitted. It is clear from the response of local residents that their quality of life is already being significantly eroded by the noise and level of activity that the use generates and from associated problems of anti-social behaviour, due largely to the proximity of residential properties to the school's playground.

It can reasonably be assumed therefore that the cumulative impact of the temporary buildings will increase the intensity of the use and will exacerbate the intensity of the problems experienced by local residents. It is considered that such a scenario is wholly unacceptable and the application should therefore be refused accordingly under policies EN1, EN3 and DM1 of the Core strategy that seek to protect residential amenity and noise sensitive uses. Similarly, the adequacy of the site must also be brought into question as greater site coverage would result in a smaller amount of outdoor play space brought about by the requirement to accommodate the temporary buildings that would in turn, further concentrate and therefore increase background noise levels.

Disabled Access - A brief access statement was submitted as part of the application, demonstrating the school's commitment to ensuring the proposed extension is fully accessible to all by means of a ramped access. It is considered the development is accessible to all pursuant to policies SP1 and DM1 of the Manchester Core Strategy.

22 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

Equality Act 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 persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity includes having due regard to the need to meet the needs of people with protected characteristics that are different from the needs of those without protected characteristics. It is not considered that the proposed development would result in such a significant loss of opportunity for education provision within the Jewish faith that this should outweigh the other material considerations such as the desirability of preserving the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, and the protection of a non designated Heritage Asset in the form of 89 Middleton Road.

Conclusion

It is considered that the visual impact of the temporary building would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and that the intensity of the use proposed would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. It is recommended that members resolve to refuse permission.

Enforcement The temporary planning permissions expired on the 30th April 2013 and 16th August 2014 respectively. As such, should the use of the temporary portable buildings not cease at the site, following refusal of this application, any relevant enforcement proceedings should begin.

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 , 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 refusal of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

Recommendation REFUSE AND ENFORCE

Article 31 Declaration Officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to

23 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014 dealing with the planning application. Officers have outlined to the applicant at pre- application meetings that the number, massing, design and siting of the proposed temporary buildings were issues to be addressed. It is considered that the concerns about the scheme are significant and fundamental and cannot be overcome with simple amendments. The application has been dealt with in a timely manner and has been determined to be in conflict with the Development Plan.

Reason for recommendation

1/The proposed temporary buildings by virtue of the location and visual appearance would present an incongruous feature within the street scene and result in a detrimental impact upon the character and visual amenity of the area and the neighbouring properties, in particular the residents of Haversham Court, and as such is contrary to policy DM1 of the Manchester Core Strategy.

2/ The temporary buildings will have an unduly detrimental affect upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, which is contrary to saved policy DC26 of the Unitary Development Plan, and policies DM1 EN1, EN3 and SP1 of Manchester's Core Strategy, by reason of the noise and disturbance generated by activities and comings and goings associated with the use, as the buildings would be located adjacent to residential accommodation particularly Lomond Lodge and Haversham Court.

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: 106429/FO/2014/N1 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:

 Highway Services  Environmental Health  North Manchester Regeneration Team  Police  10 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  12 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  14 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  16 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  18 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  20 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  22 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  24 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  26 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  28 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  30 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD

24 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

 32 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  The Belmont, 89 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  15 Grosvenor House Mews, Holland Road, Manchester, M8 4WL  16 Grosvenor House Mews, Holland Road, Manchester, M8 4WL  17 Grosvenor House Mews, Holland Road, Manchester, M8 4WL  18 Grosvenor House Mews, Holland Road, Manchester, M8 4WL  19 Grosvenor House Mews, Holland Road, Manchester, M8 4WL  20 Grosvenor House Mews, Holland Road, Manchester, M8 4WL  21 Grosvenor House Mews, Holland Road, Manchester, M8 4WL  1 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  2 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  3 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  4 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  5 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  6 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  7 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  8 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  9 Lomond Lodge, 87 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  1 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  2 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  3 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  4 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  5 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  6 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  7 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  8 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  9 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  10 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  11 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  12 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  14 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  15 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  16 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  17 Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  1 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  2 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  3 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  4 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  5 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  6 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  7 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  8 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  9 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  10 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  11 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  12 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  13 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU

25 Manchester City Council Item 6 Planning and Highways Committee 13 November 2014

 14 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  15 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  16 Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  Brooklands Court, 110 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JU  Haversham Court, 91 Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JY  Ashdown, Middleton Road, Manchester, M8 4JX  Annexe, 14 Cedric Road, Manchester, M8 4JD  18 CEDRIC ROAD, MANCHESTER, M8 4JD

Representations were received from the following third parties:

 18 CEDRIC ROAD, MANCHESTER, M8 4JD  10 HAVERSHAM COURT MANCHESTER M84JY

Relevant Contact Officer : Janet Lawless Telephone number : 0161 234 4535 Email : [email protected]

26