Manner rings changes at £124m Hotspur Press
The developer has reduced the height of its proposed student accommodation scheme in Manchester as well as increasing the number of flats and changing the materials that make up its façade.
Manner was granted planning approval for a 37-storey PBSA scheme in 2024 and the project then survived a bid by an anonymous individual to have the site listed.
Now, the developer is requesting permission to make various changes to the approved plans, including giving the tower “a more contemporary aesthetic”.
The consented brick cladding will be replaced with an aluminium façade, which will be cheaper to deliver and therefore ensure the project remains viable. The build cost is £124m, according to a viability appraisal by CBRE.
The change in materials also aims to create “a greater contrast between the existing [mill] building and the new tower…[and] allows The Hotspur Press to remain the dominant feature at street level”, the developer said.
The Hodder + Partners-designed tower has also been given a haircut and would stand almost six metres shorter than the approved building at 35 storeys.
The redesign has afforded Manner the opportunity to reconfigure the scheme internally. Increasing the size of the building’s footprint means that 24 more bedspaces can be delivered than the earlier iteration.
The total number of units will increase from 595 to 619 if the updated proposals are approved.
Richard James, managing director at Manner, said: “Since receiving unanimous approval by Manchester City Council last year for our proposals to breathe new life into The Hotspur Press, we have taken the time and opportunity to review and further improve our plans. Amongst these developments, we have focused on the appearance of the residential tower, achieving a more contemporary feel to provide a visual separation with the original Hotspur Press building, which will remain the dominant feature at street level, with its restored brick exterior and iconic Percy Brothers sign.
“We have also been able to create a more efficient internal floor layout which means that we have reduced the height of the residential tower by two storeys. We remain fully committed to delivering the 10,000 sq ft public square, space for independent businesses and extensive landscaping and pedestrian links, which have all received such strong support from the local community.”
Stephen Hodder, founding director of Hodder and Partners, said: ‘As we move into the delivery phase of the project, working with the design and delivery team, we have developed the design, addressing recent regulatory changes and issues of buildability, whilst maintaining absolute design quality that our client, Manner wishes to achieve and this context merits.”
The scheme’s brick façade is no more. Credit: via Social
Actually was in favour of this scheme but this should be a no, this value engineering behaviour takes the piss
By H
Brick was way more appropriate, this is really disappointing change.
By Mike
I really don’t appreciate them asking for the public to write letter of support only to switch to a completely different design
By Anonymous
I hope the Council refuse changes to this planning approval. I initially thought yhis developnent was a great idea. This change is too drastic and looks very cheap and shoddy.
Surely they knew this was unviable before proceeding with submitting the planning application?
By Anonymous
It certainly looks a lot cheaper to build
By Anonymous
Hope they stick with bricks.
By MrP
Very disappointing. Manner should reconsider and stick with the original proposal which is much better looking.
By John.
Absolute rubbish. I supported the original scheme but will be objecting to this. It’s a totally different tower to the one approved. People feel hoodwinked over this and rightly so. It makes a mockery of the planning process. Does anyone know does this not need a totally new planning application due to such a big change?
By Bob
The new cladding on the tower doesn’t bother me as long as it’s good quality. Just get the old part of the building refurbished properly without cutting corners
By Steve
Distinctly inferior to the previous offering – permission really should be refused.
By JDN
Saves a lot of repointing in the future.
By Bob
Oh dear. From bad to worse.
By Anonymous
Who can we email our objections to over this?
By MCR
Hi MCR. Objections can be made as part of the planning process via the planning portal. Best wishes, Dan
By Dan Whelan
The new design looks cheaper and lacks any sense of unity
By Barry
Please could you tell me if it’s been out for tender if so who will be your main contractor
Thanks
By Jonathan Bailey
The high rise looks cheap and uninspired
By Reavon
I am usually always pro development BUT the original plan here was far better. The new materials are cheaper, the new building proposal is much cheaper to execute. It feels like they put the original plan forward just to get support to get the planning approval and once they got it they are putting forward a cheaper, shittier proposal. Unfortunately I think if any councillor has the interest of the people, they need to decline this. Again, I am someone who loves redevelopment but when done right, this here is wrong from a principal pov and will sed a horrible example where developers will begin submitting grand plans for historic buildings only to change them to something cheap and shit after they’re approved.
By Omen
I don’t like this, the original was better. It looks like a Travelodge.
By Elephant
Oh, my goodness! How they suckered us all there! To get people to support an imperfect but acceptable scheme and then to change the appearance so much that it feels like some kind of spoof, is shameful. Mine is just one signature on their petition to reject listing but I thought long and hard before signing that as listing would indeed be my natural inclination. Surely MCC will not allow the system to be abused in this way.
By Patricia Cunningham
Complete bait and switch this by Manner. If they didn’t present a viability assessment at the planning stage then they need to go back for full planning permission again, the proposed changes go way beyond what should be considered under S73.
By Mis-Manager
Oh dear, they’ve lost my support here. What an awful design.
By Anonymous
This is really disappointing, aesthetically the new design is much worse
By Anonymous
Looks like one of those awful high rises in Rochdale now. Bring the brick back
By Brigus
Wow! fantastic. Really looking forward to this
By Blind Man
This is awful, change the cladding back
By Anonymous
what happened to acting in good faith?? The unanimous approval was for a brick tower to match Hotspur Press. Manner must realise they is going to be sizable badwill against them going forward.
By Anonymous
This is why developers get bad rep. Looked great initially, crap now
By Verticality
the tyranny of value engineering
By Anonymous
Brick or not at all!!! step us mcc planning department and do your job please
By Anonymous
The developer needs to be held responsible, given the boot, and made an example. Disgusting.
By Anonymous
Awful design, anyone wanting to comment on this can do so on the council’s website here: https://pa.manchester.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=S5K1HCBCH3Y00
By Dan
“Cheaper to deliver” – The phrase no one wants to hear from what should be an exciting and ambitious regeneration scheme.
The images shown also need to include the full height visual to truly get a feel for just how impactful this material change is across 37 storeys (and not just the bottom third)
By Anon
What a horrible design. The new build elements of this are truly disgraceful.
By Heritage Action
Please can you advise where did you view the viability report referenced by CBRE in the article?
By Anon
Hi Anon. Search for ref number 138805/FO/2023 on MCC’s planning portal and you can view all docs there. Best wishes, Dan
By Dan Whelan
After all the effort to get planning permission, it really is unacceptable for the developer to change to an inferior design at the last minute. I hope the Council reject this.
By Lionel
Looks much better. Can’t see why so many people make such a fuss about this building.
By Phil
This makes a mockery of the planning process if approved. The old design was fitting for Manchester, the new absolutely shocking and looks like something you’d see developed in Stoke.
By Anonymous