Accrue sets out case for Trafford hearing
Last year, the developer appealed against the council’s non-determination of its plans for 333 homes on the former B&Q site on Great Stone Road. Consultant WSP has now lodged a 115-page statement of case ahead of the hearing later this year.
Accrue Capital’s plans feature the creation of a residential scheme close to Old Trafford Cricket Ground, comprising three blocks varying in size from four to nine storeys.
O’Connell East Architects designed the Old Trafford project.
Among the arguments laid out by WSP in favour of the scheme are that:
- Trafford cannot prove a five-year housing supply
- The development is supported by principles laid out in the Civic Quarter Area Action Plan
- The scheme would provide much-needed affordable homes in the area.
“The impacts associated with the scheme do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,” WSP states.
“Indeed, the benefits of the scheme significantly outweigh the adverse impacts identified.”
WSP’s statement also says that the project has an estimated GDV of £11.4m and that, should the appeal be allowed, construction could begin at the end of Q1 2022. Based on that timeline, completion is scheduled for 2024.
The scheme has a GDV of £11.4m. Credit: via planning documents
Trafford Council rejected the project last year, citing seven reasons for refusal including:
- Poor design – “its form, layout, height, scale, massing, density and monolithic appearance are inappropriate in its context and would result in a building which would be significantly out of character with its surroundings”
- Adverse impact on Lancashire County Cricket Club and the Longford Park Conservation Area.
The authority is in the process of drawing up its own statement of case. No date for the hearing has been set yet but it is understood it should take place before the end of the year.
Once the hearing is over, the planning inspectorate could make a decision within six weeks.
The October refusal was the second time Accrue’s plans had gone before Trafford’s planning committee.
In March 2019, a larger iteration of the project featuring 433 flats was turned down, prompting the developer to scale back the scheme.
The site falls within the Civic Quarter Area Action Plan. Credit: via planning documents
After the 2019 rejection, the council announced its willingness to look at using compulsory purchase powers at the site to deliver a leisure centre.
According to the Civic Quarter Masterplan, the former B&Q site is suitable for a development of four storeys, with possibilities including parking, a leisure centre and “possibly a mix of higher value uses”.
However, in January the council rowed back on this following a review of its leisure centre strategy.
It is now understood that a residential development is the most likely outcome for the plot, as outlined in the council’s Civic Quarter Area Action Plan.
It’s too big, there’s no need for so many homes, pure greed, build big detached houses with gardens or shops
By YS
YS – there is a housing crisis, of course we need more homes. There are plenty of big detached homes being built in soul-less suburbs all across the country – Old Trafford, with its high frequency metrolink stations, is aboslutely the right place for high density homes.
By Anonymous
Good luck with your appeal Accrue – this shouldn’t have been refused. Politics clearly at play and LCCC flexing their muscles.
There is a leisure centre literally 50m away in Stretford Girls School along with the original Stretford Leisure Centre opposite it. They should spend money regenerating the original leisure centre which is way past it’s best rather than trying to CPO this site and build a leisure centre. The Council’s proposals don’t make much sense. I’m not sure on what legal grounds they could CPO this site, it appears to be an empty threat to satisfy those against the scheme who may not fully understand the CPO process.
If it has now been decided in the Civic Quarter Area Action Plan that this site is suitable for resi they should be approving this application and moving on to doing something actually in the public interest with the public funds they are spending.
By Anon
Yes YS mansions for everyone and a Harrods on every corner ! I’m not convinced it would cost in but I’d like to live there.
By NewObserver
Do any of you live round here? Where’s the infrastructure to support more high density housing. Theres one a stones throw away on Talbot/Christie Rd. There’s no parking there. Where’s the new GP surgeries and dentists. It’s a bloody joke. We need houses for family’s with gardens for the kids not more concrete.
By Shirl
Does the developer think this is town or Hulme? It isn’t, flats like these would ruin this area completely, it’s completely the wrong scheme cramming more people into the area. If there was a real housing crisis then build in Wales or somewhere that ain’t already built up too much.
By Arron
I actually think this looks like a decent scheme and am slightly confused about the massing/size argument given the adjacent stand.
Some of the comments are ridiculous. ‘Build where it’s not built up already’ – so you’d prefer we concrete over the entire country before increasing density in urban areas?! Absolutely brainless.
If we’re going to address our impact as a race on the planet, on the country, at the same time as providing more places for people to live then we have to increase density in our cities. We cannot continue to pave over every last bit of land until everything is urbanised.
Higher density in close proximity to the city means less traffic (more public transport usage, less carbon emissions), less land usage (more countryside for biodiversity, carbon offset, wilderness etc), more tax receipts for city council (more to spend on improvements), better city vibe (more people means more customers, more events etc), better access to amenities (instead of isolation in suburbia, traveling by car to shops etc). It’s an absolute no brainer.
By The Squirrel's Nuts