Dandara faces Didsbury refusal
Issues around the density of the development, parking and the potential impact on the road network have been put forward as reasons to reject the 75-apartment Blackbird Yard off Parrs Wood Lane.
Dandara lodged plans for the Didsbury build-to-rent development in May.
Designed by Hodder + Partners, the scheme 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.
The project will go before Manchester City Council’s planning committee next week with a recommendation for refusal.
The reasons given are as follows:
- The proposal is for a high-density form of residential development outside of an identified district centre that does not address the housing needs of the area
- The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable impacts to congestion on the highway network.
- The proposals fail to provide an adequate level of on-site car parking to serve the proposed residential units – 36 spaces are proposed.
Manchester City Council’s highways department would expect 100% parking provision – one space per home – in this area of the borough, according to an officers’ report.
Earlier this week, the city council’s cabinet heard the authority is failing to meet its target of being net zero by 2038. A report updating councillors on the city’s carbon reduction targets said that there would need to be a 30% reduction in the overall distance travelled in cars if Manchester is to have any chance of meeting its climate goals.
This is exactly the type of development we need to achieve net zero. With a tram stop, train station and bus interchange on your doorstep, as well as the Tesco, local centres and gyms, leisure at Parrs Wood you have a walkable environment. This is the type of development which would show that Manchester is maturing into a proper metropolitan city. There’s a clear correlation between density and GDP of cities. We can’t all live in semis in and drive to work if we’re going to lift up to the next level.
By Wake Up Manchester
Errr it’s next to a Met stop. Are we not meant to be trying to get people out of cars and onto public transport???? Our cities are exactly the places we should be building densely. Honestly the way they contradict themselves on so many of these decisions beggars belief.
By Bob
A developer or development has to take the jump like this to not include car parking spaces and push for public transport, people without cars will live here and people who need cars will be put off.
A development I work on is only having 1 car space per dwelling with double yellow lines around the roads to prevent car parking.
Get it built
By JB
Ludicrous decision. There are some in MCC who believe we are still living in the 1960s, seemingly. This is a perfectly walkable and well-connected location, in an area which badly needs new homes. If the planning committee refuse this application, I would strongly urge Dandara to appeal and overturn it. Many other developers have been successful at over-turning MCC’s recent bizzare decisions.
By Anonymous
Correct decision here. You can’t have less than 50% parking provision in the suburbs. If we did that we’d have cars parked all over the place. There are numerous 30-50 apartment proposals in Chorlton and DIdsbury that are achieving 100% parking provision. It is not fair on these developers that another should benefit from not following the council guidelines on parking provision.
By Anon
Why would you live in a Build to Rent scheme in East Didsbury and commute to the city centre if you had the choose of endless other apartments close to town? Most of the residents here will work in South Manchester and beyond, benefitting from its connection to the motorway
By Anon
Even though the design leaves a lot to be desired, the apartments will be well out of the price range for normal folk.
By Trevor
Fully concur with MCC decision. Too many developments are just thrown up without any lateral thinking or any nod to good architectural design and thought about the people who end up living in them.
Totally support the council on this one.
By M Whiteley
36 car parking spaces for 75 apartments doesn’t make sense regardless of the network links.
By Lane
Planning have made the right decision. East Didsbury is not a city, it isn’t even a district centre. What is needed here is family housing not Lego blocks. There are two huge high schools at either end of the area propsed, traffic is already horrendous at this junction so any extra cars would make this even more dangerous for students and no traffic mitigation was put forward. People need cars for many reasons, particularly those living out of the centre even if transport options are good so the expectation that residents would not drive in my opinion is more aspiration than fact. The parking provision is also woefully inadequate for a build of this size which would likely lead to a build up of cars on nearby streets causing further traffic issues. There are many others places this development could be built to help towards net zero but this build is in the wrong place, at the wrong height and does not fit with the area. We should not be building on any spare bit of brownfield land just so developers and land owners can make a profit. I applaud the Planning Department’s decision and hope the committee endorse it.
By Right Build Right Place
There are apartments from the 1930s (?) literally across the road. This is an excellent location for transit oriented development and enabling car free, or car lite, living.
By Anonymous
Anyone who can actually afford to buy in East Didsbury will also be a car owner. Question is, where will they park? Presumably electric cars in most cases though, so lower direct fossil fuel emissions. However, that junction and feeder roads are already problematic at peak hours. Nobody local ever wants change in their area, unless it personally benefits them. Perhaps if the 75 new apartments were priced at 50% the market rate, nobody would mind the new development.
By Greg
I can’t imagine why anyone would consider extra homes on such a
busy intersection. As someone who lives locally and battles daily to cross the intersection it must be refused.
By Sonia McCann
You can’t have it both ways. If you provide loads of parking it encourages car ownership and car use then everyone whinges about the traffic. Developments like this well-connected locations with restrained parking will encourage residents to do without cars, maybe using taxis or car clubs for the occasional journeys when public transport isn’t suitable. Time for some ambition here.
By CG
It being next to public transport, and people using said public transport are completely different ! The area is clearly not suitable for this development with the current congestion out side the tesco entrance is terrible, the increase with construction traffic and future residential is not possible, and needs to be reconsidered
By Jonnyboy
75 additional cars in and out of (Tescos) daily on an already congested junction.
By jrb
People never seem to get it. You plan for cars, you get cars. You plan for other transport modes and more people use those other transport modes. If cities get more congested, journey times by car go up… so people use other transport modes. You need density to get towards a sustainable transport use. In our underfunded system in the UK public transport element can’t come first. Build it and they will adapt.
By Induced Demand
Prior to submitting the planning application the developer held 3 consultations with residents, this was welcomed and well attended. The results were that 92% of respondents indicated that their position on the proposals remained unchanged by choosing the option ‘I had concerns about the original proposals presented last year and I still don’t support these updated proposals.’ The developer has not listened to it’s own consultation and appears to now not be listening to the planning department who have recommended refuse. This development is far too high for the area, will add to traffic and cause parking issues on nearby residential streets. I do hope it is rejected by the committee as an ill thought out plan for a suburban area.
By Tom P
Apparently 75 apartments automatically equals 75 cars.
Simple people.
By Anonymous
Really shoddy decision-making from MCC. If the developer believes there’s a market for apartments among people who decide to live car-free, then perhaps that should be treated as their judgement to make? Instead of recommending perfectly good development in a sustainable location for refusal, MCC’s role needs to be enforcement against antisocial car storage on nearby streets alongside initiative to reduce car ownership, not sustain and increase it.
By Active Travel Trev