Kingsway, Triple Jersey, p planning docs

The scheme would see the existing B&M store on the site demolished. Credit: via planning documents

£33m Burnage BTR comes forward

St Helier-based Triple Jersey has lodged plans for a 112-home scheme on a four-acre site next to Mauldeth Road train station that is currently occupied by a B&M store. 

The developer plans to demolish the 30,000 sq ft shop, which started out life as a B&Q, and build 34 apartments and 78 houses on the Kingsway site. 

To learn more about the scheme, search for application reference number 138712/FO/2023 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal. 

DPP Planning is advising the applicant on the proposals and Sten Architecture is leading on design. 

The plot immediately south of Triple Jersey’s application site has twice been the subject of proposals for residential but has met with rejection four times – twice at the hands of Manchester City Council and twice at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. 

Developer Superstan Property originally planned to build 147 apartments before scaling back its scheme to 90. 

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Looks like a decent scheme. Nice big balconies to add articulation to the facades.

By Anonymous

Shame it’s not “build to buy”.

By Anonymous

Leave well alone already a parking issue where is everyone going to park. Also that shop (b&m) serves all the local community and would be greatly missed.

By Anonymous

OK, we have heard the silly idea that all these residents are going to use the trains, bus. That run pass the site really, come on council. They will all have 2 or more cars, which they won’t be able to park so will clogg the local roads. We there are already major issues. We’re are the school, doctor places for the extra residents, or sorry are these just more housing for students via the back door.

By Patrick

Demolishing the b&m isn’t a good idea why not demolish where blockbuster used to be and do it there make more sense as Iceland is literally the only shop open there could easily work around it… disturbing the peace of the community and the convenience of b&m just to make the place look fancy is only going to cause more issues

By Anonymous

Keep the b&m. Unless it’s affordable housing our buy to own keep it.Too many BTR apartments in our cities housing shouldn’t be looked at as a investment but as a right to shelter.

By Anonymous

B&am is the only place local where we can purchase diy products as well as affordable toys, general items, and a convenient department store. The next nearest is Stockport or Hyde road, way too far for the elderly or if you don’t drive. And what provisions will be built for these 112 homes. Another Doctors? Another school? Another Dentist? Another entertainment source? No, absolutely nothing, maybe a few more takeaways tho, to add to the hundreds already spread across the vicinity 😞

By Anonymous

This should not be allowed removing a essential store that is used by many for a private company to make a massive profit and the local people to lost out unless they relocate and build a new b+m close to the location first .

By B Griffiths

Think bnm should stay

By Lisa Mcinnes

Like at Regent Road, locals are losing their amenities for more flats, encouraging them to drive further. No 15 minute city here.

By Josh Burns

Where on earth will the Didsbury folk procure extremely reasonably priced washing detergent and conditioner?

By Chartered Surveyor

We have a chronic housing crisis with homelessness at a record high and yet motorists are (typically) only thinking about themselves. No new homes allowed if it inconveniences any car drivers anywhere. What a selfish attitude! Here’s an idea: get on your bike or on a bus and stop clogging the roads with your own cars

By Anonymous

I have nothing against the redevelopment of this land but the scheme does not appear to be “tested” market wise instead basing its tenures on lazy and unproven assumptions.

The viability argument argues that this will create “high-quality single family housing” and is aimed for those in Burnage “who realistically cannot afford to buy a house”. Then I ask the equally valid questions:
Of the 112 proposed dwellings, why aren’t any for shared ownership then?
If they are aimed at families why so little parking? Families generally have cars as they are a necessity – let’s just be honest about that.
Why have local housing associations such as Southway or MSV not been consulted to confirm this assumption?
Are we just contributing to the problem of more and more people renting by building properties that aren’t available for sale? BTR is like a new Feudal system that is making the problem worse.

In the case of the last point the layouts actually scream “student housing by the back door” to me and nothing really adds up – certainly not “high quality family housing”! We’ll see if the applicant adapts the scheme. If not hope MCC reject and why for a better proposal to come along.

By Wandering Manc

This would be fine if they are going to be affordable homes and not just for the well off We need social housing in Manchester

By Anonymous

@Anon 9.19am, the weather is bad and the buses are unreliable, if you live in Worsley for example driving is the only way

By Gilly

Oh no , just what we need, more lycra clad warriors pretending they are Lance Armstrong. Yes I’ll get both kids on the crossbar. Mother can sit on the handlebars…Yes it’s clogged around here but bikes are not definitely not the answer for everyone. Selfish and patronising to think otherwise.

By Anonymous

Bikes may not be the answer for everybody, but I never suggested getting everybody on a bike. The roads are clogged because too many people drive – no other reason. Therefore, getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes or public transport is the way to reduce traffic. They also don’t need to be ‘lycra clad’, what a ridiculous comment.

I’m only trying to help. If you want less traffic then you need fewer cars. Gilly you’re the one who’s always saying everybody should drive. If that’s the case then enjoy wasting your life paying to be stuck in traffic while someone on a bike speeds past.

By Anonymous

Hey folks – I believe points have been made on both sides re: cars v. cycles. Let’s move the conversation forward, rather than retreading old ground. Thanks.

By Julia Hatmaker

great scheme, too many local decrying lack of housing one moment then decrying lack of throwaway tat afterwards.

By Anonymous

You mean recycling old ground Julia …ok Wheel stop now..😁

By Anonymous

So will insufficient parking lead to a free for all on local streets that are already jam-packed?

By Anonymous

B&M to stay !!! It’s needed for the local community

By Anonymous

Affordable housing is not needed as the average salary is between 27k and 39k so people can afford housing just fine

By James

Please leave B&M it’s a local friendly store for local residents. These developers can only see pound signs. The area will have traffic issues if this project goes ahead. They have no consideration for the local residents.

By Sam Jamil

B&M are not passive bystanders here, the site is only available if they don’t see a viable future for it, and the company themselves are happy to cash in the value of the site.

I agree with the obsession with BTR though, and the restructure of University accommodation in recent years, and the drive to push students out of Fallowfield makes this site an attractive (if somewhat subversive) proposition.

By Dave

Keep B&M !!
It would be sorely missed , and is used very much by the local community !
Instead build on the land/site next to it which is empty and an eyesore !

By Anonymous

An interesting detail to this story is Triple Jersey is owned by the Arora brothers who built the B&M chain – Simon has left but his brother Bobby is still involved. They’ve made hundreds of millions and now seem to want to focus on property. It’d be interesting to find out if they acquired other B&M sites, perhaps under a sale and leaseback deal at some point

By Jim

If you get rid of b&m you you would kill burnage it soon be a ghost town

By William Duffin

They want to kill Burnage like they want to kill Regent Road, it’s classist.

By Gilly

Depressing comments here. Big box retail is low-value and car-centric land use. If we have any aspiration to be a more prosperous place then more of them will get developed into alternative and more valuable uses. On mix and tenures, housing is housing, it all makes a difference.

By Rich X

Why on earth demolish B&M to build yet more apartments that no doubt won’t be affordable for people in the area?! B&M has been great for the local area since it opened, hope planners listen to the people who live here and opt for common sense instead of money.

By Anonymous

Keep B%M !!
Great shop , the local community would miss it hugely !!
The area needs it more then rented housing !!

By Anonymous

We need more social housing not BTR. Also am confused as to why the planning team would consider building more houses here when they have just granted planning permission to demolish the local doctors surgery (Hawthorn Medical Centre) with no thought or plan for their patients. More people for less doctors??

By Rebecca

Nonsense, the last thing the area needs is more social housing

By Anonymous

Love this scheme versus B&M as is. More of this please so we can rent in decent homes.

By Burnage Resident

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox


Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below