Option 3 View From High Street

Option Three - View from High Street

IMAGES | Salboy consults on Shudehill options

The team behind revised proposals for a problematic site in Shudehill which saw a rare refusal at Manchester’s planning committee earlier this year, has released images of the three options currently being tabled for the development and has called for feedback on the designs over the next 10 days.

On a plot at Back Turner Street and High Street, developer Salboy has revised a scheme previously intended as a 13-storey Zoku Hotel, and instead intends to deliver 50 apartments, including one, two, and three-bed flats as well as townhouses and duplex apartments. There will also be commercial space at ground floor level.

The previous proposals were refused by Manchester City Council’s planning committee on the basis of height in February this year after three previous deferrals. There had also been objections due to the demolition of historic, but dilapidated, buildings currently on the site.

Now, Salboy and architect Jon Matthews has said that there are three options being explored, with feedback encouraged in advance of a new application being submitted to the council. All three feature a higher glass building facing Shudehill, with the level dropping to a brick six-storey property facing High Street. The developer is consulting on the height of the building at Shudehill, the inclusion of a pocket park, and whether to retain the existing warehouse.

The planning consultant is Euan Kellie Property Solutions, while Counter Context is running the consultation process.

See below for the three options for the site. There are 10 days left to give feedback on the designs; send your views to info@salboy-projects.co.uk

Option One

The first option shows an 11-storey glass building facing Shudehill, demolition of the existing warehouse, and a new six-storey brick building facing High Street.

Option Two

Option 2 View From High Street

Option Two – view from High Street

Option two is similar to option one, but with a pocket park next to High Street which pushes the brick building back from the road, and the glass block on Shudehill rises an extra floor to 12 storeys.

Option Three

Option three retains the existing warehouse on site and incorporates it into the base of the tower, also features the pocket park on High Street, while the glass building on Shudehill rises to 16 storeys.

All three, comparison

Shudehill Options

From left: Option one, two and three

Your Comments

Read our comments policy


By Bo

Since when can a single tree surrounded by pavement be called a (pocket) “park”?

By Cmon

1 for sure

By York Street

Definitely 2. Pocket park is more of a conceptual approach rather than a park of sorts. gorgeous scheme for a place that’s literally falling apart.

By John

Hilarious. A tree and two benches is now classed as a pocket park! A combination of 1 and 3. keep the old building but no park as it’s utterly pointless and will just be taken over by street drinkers!

By Steve

Option 2, it looks much better without the old warehouse, and still benefits from the taller glass tower and pocket park than the other two options..

By Steve

This looks like an improvement to the area from what I can see. This area of town is dilapidated and needs stimulation to bring people back into it. I don’t understand why anyone would complain about something like this, especially when it’s not their risk or money being spent! number 3

By Shudehill Shuggie

This is a great approach.

Option 3 for me, shame it couldn’t have the curved wall on that option too.

By Thumbs Up.

This is either a very brave or very stupid move by the developer. This area now resembles a homeless camp with many closed down bars and shops. England’s skid row. The middle class hipsters have long gone.


They may regret given options when everyone says 3.

By NQ Resident

You moan when there’s no greenery and you moan when there is. No pleasing some. I bet none of you went to the consultations either. Least some of us made the effort.

By sherbert_lemon

Agree with sherbert_lemon – one tree better than none!

By NQ Resident


By Liam

They should have used Simpson Haugh, It would have been approved months ago AND be a lot bigger.
Do we know what sort of tree is proposed for the park?

By A Gaudi

Oh, option 3 if it has to happen

By A Gaudi

Option 3 – let’s be bold and move forward.

By Winston

I wonder how much rental value is lost in adjacent building whose view and sunlight is blocked by new building and Towers? Are these “hidden” extrnal costs (lost revenue) calculated or taken into account anywhere? Who would buy/rent an office/flat with a view of a wall? Not me, perhaps you?

By James Yates

Option 4: pocket park (from op 2&3) old warehouse (from op 3) rounded High str corner (op 1&3) most importantly: glass building no taller than 10 storeys!!!!

By Dan

Option two – although the height of the tower in option three is better. The Warehouse/s do not add anything to the scheme and are not high quality enough to merit retaining – they cut the scheme up.

By Dan

I prefer Option 2, needs more glazing on the end elevation though. At least they have been honest and value engineered the landscape before they did the visuals.

By Anonymous

Definitely 3

By Anonymous

Option 2

By Joan

Option 1. Lose the height rather than two benches that no one will use and a tree for dogs to go on.

By Anon

Actually a decent means of generating design debate and opinion, were it not via a bit Planning Consultant who is a major sponsor of PNW events. Credibility is important. I feel. I hope this comment makes the Statement of Community Involvement. Ps, option 1 for me.

By Face Palm

Option 2

By Lenny1968

What about the glass tower element? Very clever to distract from that with 3 options for the less contentious bit of the scheme… What were the reasons for refusal previously again??? Oh yeah, the tower element to Shudehill…

By Jo-Jo

The glass tower is great.

By York Street

Option 1 – height is less contentious on Shudehill and site is still maximized. No point putting a sad little tree on the end

By Bradford

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 12,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox


Join more than 12,000 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

Would you also like to receive our free PlaceTech Weekly newsletter, covering innovation in property?*