Shudehill Interland Holdings p. planning docs

Interland Holdings is proposing to deliver 175 homes at 29 Shudehill. Credit: via planning documents

Manchester set to refuse revised £58m Shudehill homes

Concerns that converting a grade two-listed building may damage the area’s heritage could prove the downfall for Interland Holdings’ project.

The city council is recommended to refuse plans to transform the 19th-century building at 29 Shudehill to deliver 175 city centre apartments. Manchester’s planning and highways committee will review the proposals next Thursday.

The site currently contains the grade two-listed 29 Shudehill and the Rosenfield Building, a former department store located at 18-20 Dantzic Street.

Plans drawn up by Buttress Architects would see the complete demolition of the vacant Rosenfield Building and partial demolition of 29 Shudehill. The building’s front wing and most of its centre would be kept and repaired.

According to the officer’s report, the partial demolition of 29 Shudehill would “cause harm to and fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

The proposed transformation of the site has a gross development value of £57.6m. The scheme would deliver 58 one-bed, 106 two-bed, and 11 three-bed apartments across three blocks, reaching up to 19 storeys in height.

Residents would also have access to 13,000 sq ft of flexible ground floor retail space.

Due to the project’s city centre location, there would be no car parking spaces provided, however 90 cycle spaces would be available.

The revised plans were submitted last July, four years after the original proposals were lodged for the site. Distinct markings have been added to break up the building’s solidarity and reduce its visual impact.

Avison Young is advising Interland Holdings on the plans. Civic Engineers is structural engineer for the scheme and Stephen Levrant is heritage consultant.

To find out more about the plans, search for application number 121195/FO/2018 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Manchester needs more conservative planners

By Dan

90 cycle spaces for 175 apartments? Do one

By Anonymous

To be fair this proposal doesn’t look great but what’s there currently looks derelict and one of the most unattractive parts of the city centre.

By Michael

The right choice made. Come with better proposal!

By Anonymous

I think that this development should go ahead as it will retain some of the character of old buildings that are disappearing and being replaced with high rise glass boxes.

By Mr Paul Griffiths

Beggars can’t be choosers, what’s there is a crime ridden blight.
Remember Thomas Street.

By RoddyDoyle

We need to demand better. This is a gateway to the city and needs to be more attractive. Many of us would swap out the heritage assets if the final proposal looked good. Angel Gardens and the glass tower across the road are worlds apart from this bland dross.

By Ugly Proposal

Can we start just preserving at lest some of the old characterful Manchester, seriously it’s getting ridiculous now. Please of room to expand the city centre for buildings like these.

By Loganberry

“Manchester needs more Conservative planners”. Yes because the Conservatives are doing a stellar job on the national stage aren’t they

By Anonymous

@dan surely a conservative planner would be concerned about heritage lol

By Levelling Up Manager

There are no conservatives on the national stage lol, these are the people trying to push HS2, nothing conservative about that

By Anonymous

April 06, 2023 at 9:43 am
By Anonymous

I’m not sure if ‘Dan’ is meaning the party or the philosophy but he did write the word in lower case so could be the latter.

This proposal by the way is rather mediocre.


Anonymous 9.43, for once I’ll defend Dan. That was clearly conservative with a small ‘c’ . Always read before you chew the keyboard, saves a lot of mess.

By Anonymous

Why is this building Grade II listed? What value does it offer? Why are we so obsessed with preserving derelict buildings! How many people refusing this application actually live, work or use the area? Why do they want this old building here instead of having a useful, high quality one?

Get it demolished and build a shiny new skyscraper in it’s place that can house hundreds of flats for young professionals (the people who actually live in the area and want city centre apartments). Add some ground floor and roof top amenities that all can use and then you have a development for a 21st century city.

Out with the old and in with the new, it’s time to look forward, not back.



I’m a broad architectural church taste wise. But there’s a number of superior option for city housing – like town houses and mansion blocks – then energy-dependent high rise units, especially ones with curtain wall glazing.

A lot of ‘useful’ functional buildings are surprisingly useless in terms of future adaptation whilst character buildings have intricacy and a patina which makes for a rich urban environment.


@ MC – if I may, just because you don’t understand the merit of historical conservation doesn’t mean its not important. I actually do live and work in the area and would like to see this block restored and a new development added on that is sympathetic to the listed buildings. 29 Shudehill was once an oat and corn mill, then a paper mill, tobacco mill, then a tailors – it tells the story of the city over the last 200 years. if we demolished all listed buildings and just built new ones as you say, we’d have no idea where we came from and how we got there. historical buildings give sense of place and should persevered with same importance given to art in a museum, as they vital to appreciating our past and present. I would do some research into why conservation is important and perhaps expand your reductive opinion.

By Anonymous

manchester should retain its historical buildings with more sympathic planning and not allow it to become a clone of many other cities

By Anonymous

I’m all for decent buildings being maintained, but come on, knock it down and free the reins.

By Tom

If it was a Reneker proposal there would be no debate!

By Digbuth O'Hooligan

Agree with this, it looks rubbish. We need to demand better as a city!

By Heritage Action

Wish the MEN and Place NorthWest would give me an idea with photographs where these proposed developments are going in context of the city …..most frustrating!

By Rodders

    We gave you the address. Use Google Maps and see for yourself. – J

    By Julia Hatmaker

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