Arundel Street June 2018 1

PLANNING | Logik tower rejected in rare Manchester refusal

Jessica Middleton-Pugh and Neil Tague

Proposals for a 35-storey tower by Andrew Flintoff-fronted developer Logik have been rejected by Manchester City Council’s planning committee, the second time this year councillors have gone against officer recommendations to approve a high-profile scheme.

Logik proposed a scheme at Arundel Street, Castlefield, designed by SimpsonHaugh and presented by planner Deloitte Real Estate that includes a total of 386 apartments in the tower, with a 10-storey building and the redevelopment of an existing low-rise warehouse alongside. The plans had already been examined at September’s committee, but a decision became deadlocked with five votes for and against.

At yesterday’s meeting, there were passionate representations against the project by the Britannia Bay Community Forum, represented by Louise Pullen, as well as Hulme ward councillors. Pullen said: “There have been no concessions, no amendments, some talk but no action. We’re not saying we don’t want development here, but we do want the committee to reject this and the proposal to be re-designed, to give Hulme something to be proud of.”

Heritage architect Stephen Levrant spoke in favour of the project, arguing that the assumption that tall buildings cannot be developed alongside heritage assets is a “fallacy”, adding that “history doesn’t stop, and these can be the heritage buildings of tomorrow”.

The committee was not won over, with Cllr James Wilson stating the view that the development would dominate the Castlefield conservation area, particularly the grade two-listed St George’s church. At the final count there were seven votes against the scheme.

This year has seen a step change in how Manchester City Council’s planning committee has dealt with projects. The council’s planning department works closely with developers prior to an application being formally submitted, meaning that by the time a scheme reaches committee it comes with a recommendation to approve. Historically the elected members on the committee followed these recommendations, but in recent months there has been heated debate in the council chamber. The start of this year saw aparthotel plans at Shudehill by developer Salboy come to committee three times; each time councillors criticised its height while planning officers justified it, and finally the project was refused.

This change has been attributed by many in the development community to last year’s departure of council chief executive Sir Howard Bernstein. Bernstein was keen on enabling construction and easing the path for investors into the city, and Manchester’s planning process was seen as an efficient one for those developers who gained his support. However since he retired from the council in March 2017, the outcome of planning committees has become less predictable.

While vocal elected members and debate over the appropriateness of developments can be viewed as a triumph for democracy, uncertainty over planning results may be off-putting for developers who previously saw Manchester as a straightforward city to build in.

Meanwhile, at the same committee MMU secured consent for its plans to build 491 apartments in blocks ranging from six to 16 storeys in height at the Birley Fields site, close to the Hulme Arch. GWP Architecture is the project’s designer, with Deloitte again advising on planning. The site had an existing outline consent for 475 apartments.

Hulme councillors objected to the project, speaking on behalf of residents of neighbouring Hornchurch Court, but the proposals won through.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

Too right. Tower is okay but location is/was hideous.

By Thumbs Up.

They should be grateful anybody even wants to invest in Hulme, couldn’t get me living there.

By PDM

Hulme is perfectly fine, WTF is wrong with some of the people that comment on here? Probably never even been to Hulme in the last 20 years. I’d rather live in Hulme than some horrible Barratt-built cul-de-sac suburb in the middle of a field somewhere

By Anonymous

As we’ve said before stick to cricket lad….glad the committee kicked it out

By Dave J

Looks like its about to mug the church

By Anon

A wrong’un if ever I saw one

By Bernard Bosanquet

Correct decision. Great design, absolutely wrong location. Keep your eyes peeled for a watered down version coming to our screens in the next few months, which will get through just like St Michael’s Place

By Steve

A shame

By Graham

I find it strange that the developer simply took it back to committee for the second time with no amendments whatsoever. Isn’t that just arrogance? I think part of the problem is that you now have developers in Manchester like Flintoff and Neville, encouraged by the old administration at MCC, who aren’t actually developers at all so they simply don’t understand how to create community, good design or placemaking. It’s not something that just comes from an architects pen, it needs to come from the client, it has to be within their DNA. Listen to someone like Tom Bloxham speak and you realise he is so far ahead of Neville and the like in terms of his understanding of how a city works. Capital + Centric and DeTrafford too, they’re trying to create places where people will actually want to live rather than simply creating them because it makes money. And by the way, Hulme is now incredible compared to the social problems of the past. Again, led by Urban Splash.

By Derek

Well said Derek

By Stephen

Who’s Derekkk? (*scouse accent)

By Vicar in a Tutu

We’ll see what happens at appeal.

By ALL

“This change has been attributed by many in the development community to last year’s departure of council chief executive Sir Howard Bernstein. Bernstein was keen on enabling construction and easing the path for investors into the city, and Manchester’s planning process was seen as an efficient one for those developers who gained his support. However since he retired from the council in March 2017, the outcome of planning committees has become less predictable”. Where to begin………………

By Barry Brown

Excellent. Well done Councillors. All too frequently, approval has been given for awful tall buildings, lacking any architectural merit. Yes, let’s have development so Manchester becomes an iconic city in the 21st Century as it was in the 19th. However, tall and taller in every case is not the right choice.

By Roy G Chapman

The developer will probably win on appeal, the council will have to pay substantial costs and the block will get built anyway.

By Lenny1968

It appears the days of going in and providing key officers at the council with what they want and getting schemes through on the nod are over. This will make the developer community nervous moving forward. That said, if it finally means we can do away with the ‘favoured’ architect and planning consultant route maybe some good will come of it.

By BDAY

Too many momentum members in the council now, they’ll veto anything.

By Yarrum

Subscribe to our newsletter