Manchester sides with skyscraper developer in daylight row
The city council is set to approve plans for the £241m mixed-use redevelopment of the Stocktons Furniture site on Great Ancoats Street, which residents in a neighbouring building objected to because of the potential for “catastrophic light losses”.
Liquid Funding Business’s two-tower, 750-apartment scheme was due for determination at December’s planning committee meeting but a sunlight and daylight report received at the eleventh hour resulted in a decision on the project being deferred.
Residents in neighbouring Oxygen Tower had raised concerns about the impact of the project, which features a 50-storey element, on their access to natural light.
However, having considered a report prepared by Akt on behalf of the residents, Manchester City Council’s planning team has recommended the scheme for approval next week.
The city council agrees with consultancy GIA, which concluded that the reduced daylight and sunlight levels for neighbouring residents caused by the Stocktons scheme are acceptable in a city centre context.
A council report also states that Oxygen residents currently enjoy “unusually high baseline daylight levels” due to the low-rise nature of the Stocktons site at present.
SimpsonHaugh Architects is leading on design and Turley is the planner. Re-form Landscape Architecture is designing the public realm and Renaissance is the civil and structural engineer.
To learn more, search for reference number 142535/FO/2025 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal.
A serious grown up council who want a thriving city not one that panders to NIMBYS and naysayers. Well done Manchester once again.
By Peter
Common sense prevails…
By Stuart
Fantastic news that shows Manchester growth is far from over. Imagine if every council in the country had this attitude the UK would be booming.
By Phil Hamilton
A council approving £240M worth of investment seems like common sense but as we know some councils in the North West would reject it or have a consultation that last years. Good decision MCC but it’s another day at the office for them.
By JW74
Great, get it built!
By mcleod
I’m sorry, but anyone that lives in the monatrosity that is Oxygen, which did this VERY THING itself, can politely get in the bin.
By Tom
A victory for commonsense. I wish we could have some giant office towers too!
By Nick
No to NIMBYS.
By Andee
it’s a no from me unless they change this horrendous design
By Michael
Laughable that people in Oxygen tower are complaining. I seem to remember a similar thing happening to the St Michaels development from the people in Great Northern Tower. Lots of negativity about this one but its different, I kind of like it.
By Bob
Well done MCC. Absolutely the right decision.
By Anonymous
Well done MCC – if we have any hope of hitting growth ambitions in the UK, we need to have large scale development alive and kicking fuelling the various labour markets. Maybe send MCC into the HSE to make Gateway 2 work properly!
By John W
No coincidence that the most YIMBY city in the country is also the fastest growing.
By JP
Good decision. Bare in mind that Oxygen Tower is located south of the site – with Store Street in between – so more than likely they would be overshadowing the proposed development, not the other way around!
By Anonymous
Folk who own high-rise apartments never wanted or expected or were promised views or daylight, right? High-rise blocks will be approved to be built in front of the Planning Teams homes next year, if applied for, right?
By Anonymous
Oxygen are all just rental apartments no? If so it surely doesn’t matter too much if the tenants there are going to only stay for a couple of years and move on.
If they’re owned then that’s a different matter – anyone would have to seriously reconsider investing in city centre property if this is going to happen time and again.
As for the building proposal it’s fine. It’s jsut a big apartment building like every other.
By Anonymous
for the people who say that local residents such as the one on oxygen shouldnt have any say in this, think about how undemocratic it is for the people who ultimately foot the development and construction bill to have no power.
By anon