®Planning appeal decision
Land at Shudehill, Manchester, M4 2AD
Demolition of all non-listed buildings, partial demolition and alterations to 29 Shudehill, and erection of a new building comprising ground floor plus part 1, part 6, part 7, and part 18 storeys to include residential units (Use Class C3) together with flexible ground floor commercial floorspace (Use Class E), new public realm, cycle parking, and other associated work. Appeal B: APP/B4215/Y/23/3322180
- Authority
- Manchester City Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Nicholson D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the design of its: siting, scale, size, height, massing, architectural detailing, street scene and skyline
- the effect of the proposals on the significance of heritage assets including that derived from their settings, with particular regard to the partial loss of the Grade II listed No.29 Shudehill, the Shudehill Conservation Area, the loss of most of the non-designated Rosenfield Buildings, and the settings of other listed buildings and conservation areas
- whether the heritage and public benefits would outweigh any harm that might be identified in reaching any heritage balances and, if so, whether the same benefits could be achieved with less harm
- the extent to which the proposals would be consistent with Government policies and with the development plan for the area in reaching the overall planning balance
What decided it
The considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area combined with heritage harm to the listed building, non-designated Rosenfield Buildings and Conservation Area was found to overwhelmingly outweigh the public benefits of the scheme.
the limited weight given to heritage benefits and the moderate or lower weight given to the other public benefits did not outweigh the combined harm to the listed building, the non-designated heritage assets and the Conservation Area, so the balance tipped decisively against the scheme
Framework references: 60, 120, 110, 199, 202, 203
Plan policies cited: Policy SP1, Policy EC3, Policy CC1, Policy CC2, Policy CC3, Policy H1, Policy CC6, Policy CC7, Policy CC8, Policy CC10, Policy EN2, Policy CC9, Policy EN1, Policy EN3, Policy DM1, Policy DC18, Policy DC19, Policy H8, PfE JP-P1, PfE JP-P2
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.