Manchester’s full planning committee is set to make a virtual return at the end of July replacing the emergency delegation process during the Covid-19 outbreak.
Following government guidance to ensure the planning process continues – and in line with regulations to maintain social distancing – a small number of planning applications have been determined by emergency delegation.
These determinations have been made by the Council’s chief executive in consultation with the chair and deputy chair of the planning committee.
All decisions agreed by this group have been made in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and local planning policy – in the same way as all planning applications submitted to the Council.
The intention has been to return to a full committee as soon as Covid-19 restrictions allow to ensure decisions made have full democratic oversight.
The necessary preparations are being undertaken for the committee to resume virtually and this includes risk assessments that will allow site visits to recommence where considered necessary by committee members.
Please find below the outcomes and rationales for the final emergency delegated decisions agreed this week.
Joanne Roney, Manchester City Council’s chief executive, said: “Throughout lockdown we have been working to reconvene a full planning committee, albeit virtual at this time, and reinstall the usual decision making process with oversight from members – and I’m pleased to say this will happen in July.”
Cllr Angeliki Stogia, Manchester City Council’s executive member for environment, transport and planning, said: “I’m delighted to see that the full planning committee will be reinstalled next month. The use of the emergency powers was a temporary measure to ensure the planning process could continue during the Covid-19 outbreak to determine a small number of planning applications, in line with Government guidance. I welcome the return of a full committee that will allow the full democratic process to take place.”
Emergency delegation this week:
Planning Application 125804/FO/2019 & 125805/LO/2019 –
325 – 327 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 4LQ
The application for an aparthotel was considered in the context of the long-term regeneration strategy for this part of the city centre. The application was considered to be well-designed and fits the context of the area.
Four objections were received following a consultation of 1,700 residents, which focused largely on the height of the building and potential loss of sight lines from the Castlefield conservation area. The proposed building is smaller than similar buildings approved in the local area and is considered to fit comfortably within the context of the area which includes the Beetham Tower.
The application was APPROVED as there were no planning grounds on which to refuse the application.
A condition has been added to the approval for the developer to review the local public realm having regard to the pedestrian and cycling environment in the context of the ongoing works to Deansgate.
Planning Application 126581/FU/2020
Kempsford Close, Baguley, Manchester, M23 1LH
The application was APPROVED as the application was considered to meet the need for much-need supported accommodation in the city and meets the objective of creating sustainable mixed-use communities.
Planning Application 126638/FO/2020
Land Bound By Back Turner Street, Shudehill, Soap Street And High Street, Piccadilly, Manchester, M4 1FR
A planning application for this site has been previously assessed and approved by the full planning committee. The application was submitted to deliver new office accommodation and support employment growth in the city. The existing consent is for the delivery of new homes.
The development will generate 1,000 jobs – around 600 of which will be generated following completion.
The design of the property, height, scale and massing, has not altered in a material way following the initial approval, and the application retains a non-listed building as requested during that scheme together with the provision of a pocket park. Both of which were welcomed features of the original proposal.
The application was APPROVED as there were no planning grounds on which to refuse the application.
