Revised Arundel Street March 2019

PLANNING | Arundel Street and Back Turner Street approved

Chloé Vaughan

Two previously-refused schemes, Logik’s tower at Arundel Street and Salboy proposals at Back Turner Street, won approval at Manchester City Council’s planning committee, but CEG’s High Street development was deferred and is now waiting on a further site visit.

Ahead of committee, all three schemes were recommended for approval on the proviso that the developers agreed to make contributions to affordable housing.


APPROVED

Arundel Street

Revised Arundel Street March 2019

Number of storeys: 23 | 8 | 9

Number of apartments: 355

Architect: SimpsonHaugh

Developer: Logik Developments

Planner: Deloitte

Proposals for the 23-storey tower by Andrew Flintoff-fronted developer Logik have been approved after its initial rejection in October last year. Since the refusal, Logik revealed scaled down plans from the original stepped 35-storey tower and 10 storey block which would provide 386 apartments, to a 23-storey tower and 8 and 9 storey blocks that would provide 355 homes.

The residential building was originally rejected due to its impact on the surrounding area of Castlefield and Hulme, with councillors arguing that it would block natural light and cause further congestion because of current travel infrastructure. It was also argued that grade two-listed St George’s Church, the starting point of the Peterloo Massacre, would be directly impacted and “overtaken” by the height of the tower blocks.

Councillors agreed that the developer had listened to their issues and “credit the work put into the revised proposal.”

Councillor for Hulme Lee-Ann Igbon said that “while there have been lots of improvements since the original proposals, like reducing the height of the building and becoming more engaged in the community, the original issues regarding light, traffic, and the imposition of the building on a historical landmark still stand.” Her fellow councillor for Hulme Annette Wright backed Igbon’s stance.

However, the plans were approved with twelve votes for and two against.


Back Turner Street

Option 3 View From Back Turner Street

Apartments: 65

Number of storeys: 6 | 17

Ground floor commercial space: 1,755 sq ft

Developer: Salboy

Planning consultant: Euan Kellie Property Solutions

Architect: Jon Matthews

Proposals to redevelop the brownfield site at Back Turner street, High Street, and Shudehill have finally been approved after several rejections at various planning committees. Since the rejections, the plans have radically redesigned from the original development of a 13-storey aparthotel into a 17-storey, mixed-use residential building. The new plans also included the restoration of a warehouse site that faces Shudehill and the creation of a pocket park.

Simon Ismail, director at Salboy, said that the developer had “listened to the concerns of the community in regard to keeping with the heritage of the site and the surrounding area.” He argued Salboy had subsequently “developed a new design that is sympathetic to the surrounding architecture of the Northern Quarter.”

The council chambers were awash with contempt at the new plans.

Cllrs Sam Wheeler and Adele Douglas vehemently opposed the new plans, saying that they had received “more complaints over this plan than any other combined,” and that “the reason people come to the Northern Quarter is for the historical characteristics and the industrial heritage, which would be lost with this glass building”.

Cllr Wheeler went on to say that the creation of a pocket park was laughable as he had “seen bigger bus stops.” Andrew Brook, a local representative of other Northern Quarter residents, called the plans “a soulless and cynical attempt to cash in on the growth of the Northern Quarter.”

The plans were approved with eight votes for and five against.


DEFERRED

20-36 High Street

High Street Manchester 2

Number of apartments: 361

Number of storeys: 22

Retail and leisure space: 12,000 sq ft

Architect: Fielden Clegg Bradley

Planner: Deloitte

Developer: CEG

CEG’s proposals for the demolition of the 1960’s block currently on Manchester’s High Street and its replacement with a 22-storey building were deferred with a motion from Cllr Lyons that requested a site visit before the plans went any further.

The proposals would be for a mixed-used tower, with apartments on the upper floors and retail and leisure units at street level, with a walkway and atrium running through the centre. The market stalls which currently occupy the ground space would be relocated closer to the NCP Car Park.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

How some Labour Councillors are against the High Street proposal is beyond me. A great looking building that will greatly improve an area that quite frankly is a tip at the moment. The only part worth saving is the market stalls which I believe are being moved down the road anyway. Where is the ambition of these people? Would they rather CEG took this development and their investment to another city?

By Bob

The Labour councillors in Manchester are dimwits. They oppose everything that is progress. They want Manchester to be more like a Preston than a London. The High Street scheme is world class but they can’t see that. They have a Manchester is for poor Mancunians only attitude.

By YS

Absolutely shocking that High Street was deferred because of a laundrette and a dentist. The sheer lack of understand regarding planning is astonishing on the planning committee.

By Anonymous

How long is it now since the High Street scheme was announced? That site is in urgent need of regeneration, it brings the whole area down and yet again the council are messing around, get on with it

By NQ resident

Cllrs Sam Wheeler and Adele Douglas should be out of a job for opposing such a progressive proposal. If they want the Northern Quarter to stay a run-down, former industrial area and leave buildings like this empty and undeveloped then they really should consider another career. Greater Manchester has enough run-down, empty, post-industrial areas like Rochdale and Oldham without the need to turn Manchester City Centre into another one.

By Tyler

Slightly bonkers comments here since it’s also labour councillors who have presided over dozens of skyscrapers including the tallest ones outside London. Can we keep the silly politics out of it please?

By Bonk

As Bonk says, it can’t be ALL Labour councillors as many allegedly controversial schemes (including Arundel St and Back Turner St this very week) have got the green light. However, councillors Wheeler and Douglas do seem to be the ‘usual suspects’ in opposing what most people would view as very obvious improvements and enhancements.

By Howard

If High St doesn’t get permission there will be milkshakes in Councillor’s faces

By OMG

The councillors were right to oppose Shudehill/Back Turner Street. It is an awful 17 storey design that will be a permanent blight on the skyline. Kudos to Cllr. Lyons too. There needs to be a site visit on High Street. Yes the design is fantastic but it needs to incorporate the adjacent Art Nouvea building that they want to demolish.

As for Arundel Street, that is just absolutely hideous.

By Acelius

I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping that awful Arundel St Logik scheme NEVER gets built. Hideous and contextually horrible inappropriate.

By MancLad

There are always ways to regenerate an area whilst keeping some of its character and heritage. This slash-and-burn attitude to planning and building in central Manchester is so 1960s. Poor Manchester. So much potential, yet so much heritage disappearing and making way for soulless boxes. The vision of the planners seems to be to make the place into Abu Dhabi. It will probably end up looking more like Milton Keynes. Without the trees.

By Sally Smith

Unbelievable, this development is wold class!

By Jeff Blair

Arundel Street scheme is ugly but gets approved, the Back Turner Street scheme is dull but gets approved, the High Street scheme is stunning but gets deferred for a site visit.

By Lenny1968

I hope the residents group in Castlefield are hanging their heads in shame…the first proposal for Arundel St was a great improvement on what has subsequently been passed.

By Allotmentlad

While Liverpool is developing at slightly slower rate, they are much better standard of master planning and coordination.

I do therefore find the new develpments in Liverpool are much better better example of building Quality over Quantity.

Liverpool should be proud over its finer details of creating on new major building projects. 

By Mancunian

I go to the dentists on High Street, but I’d be more than happy to go find a new dentist if it meant they would get to build the proposed new building on the site.

By Chris

High street deferred. Are these people puddled? It is perfect for that site.That side of the city is desperate for something decent. The grotty Arndale centre and the hideous market street plus Piccadilly landfill are the offers there and lets face it the Northern Quarter is very overrated. Get it built MCC and stop being so provincial in your outlook. Piccadilly is an embarrassment.

By Elephant

Interesting that only comments in favour of these developments are being approved by the page editors.

By Sally Smith

The labour councillors are still trying to block development even though it’s been given planning, they’re truly pathetic

By YS

YS what are you going on about. You can’t block development if it’s given permission.

By Bonk

The new divided world

By AP

If Highstreet doesn’t get planning I’m cutting off my toes. Promise, I’ll video it and post it here.

Because that’s mental.

By Daveboi

How many people working under the client for Back Turner St have commented on this. Ridiculous.

By JMA

Probably not many JMA, if any at all, a lot of trolling though

By YS

That High St Scheme is spanking. Love it. Real thought has gone into that to fit it within the context of the area. Looking at some of the new rubbish nearby, its a crime for it not to get through.

By Adam

There is no good reason for High Street not to be given permission, it’s perfect. I think maybe the councillors just want to be seen doing something?

By COD

Subscribe to our newsletter