Dandara appeals Manchester refusal
The developer is bidding to overturn the city council’s decision to reject proposals for a 75-apartment scheme in Parrs Wood.
Manchester City Council refused Dandara’s Blackbird Yard last summer, citing concerns about its density, a lack of parking provision, and the potential impact on surrounding roads.
Now, the developer is hoping to secure planning approval via the appeal process.
Dandara planning director Rachel Allwood told Place North West the company is hopeful of success and a “more balanced assessment of the scheme”.
Designed by Hodder + Partners, the project would be constructed on part of the existing Tesco car park, resulting in a reduction in the number of spaces from 322 to 261.
Blackbird Yard would comprise 25 one-bedroom apartments, 40 with two bedrooms and 10 three-bedroom flats.
Perhaps the most contentious reason for refusal was the issue of parking.
The developer argued that the site’s location, close to public transport routes, meant that a parking space for each apartment was not necessary.
Dandara’s plans proposed 36 parking spaces, a 45% provision, which is similar to many of its other schemes.
However, the city council said this was insufficient.
“The result of insufficient car parking on site would be to push demand for car parking onto nearby residential streets which do not have restrictions in place,” a council report said.
No date for the appeal has been set.
To learn more about the scheme, search for reference number 133746/FO/2022 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal.
These residents will have the 142/42 bus route into town – one of the cheapest and most frequent in Manchester- the tram and the trains. I understand that the tram and trains are busy at rush hour but the solution is not to enable car ownership. Personally feel we should put a maximum limit on parking provision on new developments.
By anon
This should have been approved. When we visit other cities abroad and comment on the walkable urban environments and proximity of local services we note how easy it makes life… we might ask… “why can’t we have that?”. Then our councillors refuse such environments and build boxy semis on green fields instead. So we’re stuck on a dual carriageway and our lived experience is tarmac, tail-lights and roundabouts. We need density if Manchester is to become a proper metropolitan centre. This location has heavy rail, light rail, high-frequency buses and off-road cycle routes on it’s doorstep. It’s basically top of a supermarket, gym, cinema, restaurants, office parks… and walkable to schools and the local centres. If we can’t build dense here, those of us in urban design, sustainability and planning might as well pack up and go home.
By Fingers Crossed
It’s a great scheme in a good area but how hard is it to provide one space per apartment plus a few for visitors?
By MC
Fantastic – hope Dandara win. The council’s reasons for refusal were rooted in the 1970s.
We need more homes, and right next to a Metrolink and rail station is the perfect place to be building at high densities. Local NIMBYs are advised to think about people other than themselves for once.
By Anonymous
Its ridiculous that schemes like this and that nice corner apartment scheme in rusholme get refused over parking provision when they are argueably in the some of the most sustainable locations in terms of access to public transport and amenity. I thought Burham’s vision for GM was to reduce reliance on cars… you would’ve thought that he hadn’t mentioned it to the Planners/Councillors?
By Aevis
Sometimes hard to process that MCC is both YIMBY and NIMBY depending on the part of the city you are in, especially given their stonking Labour majority. Not embracing transit orientated developments further out and forcing minimum parking requirements is bad policy, and they must know that. I wonder other GM authorities that are struggling with the politics of Places for Everyone think when they see this.
By Rich X
They are ruining Didsbury with flats, it should be family housing only
By Cal
Local Politicans had no choice but to lobby for this scheme to be refused – every vote counts. The issue here is whether or not car parking should be increased or not – this site is probably one of these best out of city centre locations for public transport connectivity so I suspect Dandara will win this at appeal
By Anonymous
A no-brainer for the Planning Inspectorate. Highly sustainable location with some of the best access to public transport in the city. If the Inspectorate decide to run the appeal by hearing or public inquiry the cost to the city will easily run into six figures – perhaps something for local councillors to consider when making frivolous decisions.
By Anonymous
So many of these comments are fictionally true. We can all dream of a walkable place and a scheme where no owners own cars. But they will. And they do. So where do they go?
By Anonymous
A good scheme in the wrong location. Not everything’s about optimal public transport connections; would have gone through in Burnage with less parking.
By Anonymous
There are tonnes of similar schemes in Didsbury, Stockport, Northenden, Sale with less parking than the number of apartments. The same people who moan about more traffic want to provide more parking. More parking means more cars. More cars mean more traffic. This area already has an ocean of parking for other uses, Parrs Wood, Metrolink P&R, Tesco. The new Census Data shows that car ownership isn’t 1:1.
By Precedents
Are they balconies? The artist impression isn’t the most clear so I cannot pass judgement on this development yet
By Balcony warrior
It’s really simple – if you need access to a car, don’t live somewhere that doesn’t provide a parking space. This isn’t rocket science, it’s common sense.
However, the latest Census results showed that 40% of Manchester residents do not own a car, and this has reduced significantly in the last 10 years. We desperately need to stop planning the city for those people who own a car, and start planning for the future instead. The city needs more homes and less traffic. It’s a simple decision for a world-class city council to make. Question is: is MCC a world-class city council, or is it a NIMBY, luddite, backward council making small-town decisions? Only their councillors can answer that question.
By Anonymous
Parking was just one of 3 reasons why the planning department refused this application. Dandara tried to argue that the proposed site has the characteristics of a district centre but it isn’t a district centre hence the refusal was also based on them not compling with policies SP1,H1 and H6 of the Manchester Core Strategy. And also failing to demonstrate that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable impacts to congestion, anyone who lives in the area knows how bad it already is. Dandara may have dreams of a car less society but people have cars for many reasons and they couldn’t prove this site would be any different. What the area needs is more family housing as per the core strategy not ugly flats so this really is the wrong development in the wrong place. I’m actually surprised they decided to appeal.
By Right Build Right Place
these apartment is not going to be cheap, that is why parking space is important, people who could afford these apartments will likely have a car and a high paying job to fund it all.
By lewis