Didsbury Point Southway p.Alun Hayes

Buttress Architects designed the development. Credit: via UK Networks

Plans in for 100% affordable Didsbury scheme

Southway Housing Trust has submitted proposals to Manchester City Council for 76 homes just off Princess Parkway in the affluent suburb. 

All of the homes within the development will be available on affordable tenures: 30 for affordable rent and 46 for shared ownership. 

The brownfield site is one of the remaining development plots within Didsbury Point, which has come forward over several years as part of the redevelopment of the former Withington Hospital, which closed in 2002. 

Designed by Buttress Architects, Southway’s scheme features a six- to eight-storey apartment block with a medical centre on the ground floor.

“We have carefully considered all the feedback we have received during the pre-application consultation and are delighted to have submitted the final plans to Manchester City Council to deliver much-needed affordable homes for Didsbury,” said Jonathan Turner, assistant head of development at Southway.

Ellie Philcox, director at Euan Kellie Property Solutions, which is advising on planning, added: “This a one of the remaining undeveloped plots at Didsbury Point and it’s great to see it come forward for a 100% affordable scheme, supporting Manchester City Council’s Housing Strategy.” 

The city council is aiming to deliver 10,000 new affordable homes in the next 10 years. 

The project team also includes Civic Engineers, Clancy, GIA and Plincke. 

Manchester City Council is expected to make a decision on the planning application at the beginning of 2023. 

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Amazing, more of this everywhere please!

By Anonymous

‘as part of the redevelopment of the former Withington Hospital’……..so its in Withington then ! Hate it when they reallign borders to allow a certain postcode and enable a price hike !

By Anon

We need this over the city, plus ground floor commercial. Let’s hope councillors don’t block it due to parking provision. A mature city with a dense population base would have units like this in similar walkable locations. Fantastic location with the gym, deli, school and tram right there and the Burton Road shops round the corner. This achieves 10x the housing units per hectare than low-density units in the countryside. Well done.

By Loveheart Eyes Emoji

Anon 9.57, Withington Hospital was in West Didsbury.

By Anonymous

Should these units not have balconies so residents have access to outdoor space?

By Balcony watch

What are the parking provisions for the development and have you really taken the residents’ feedback?

By Anonymous

No outside space. No where near enough parking. Grossly oversized. Bet it’s a private medical centre underneath. Blatant money spinner under the umbrella of affordable housing.

By Anonymous

Looks like over development 76 apartments and 30 parking spaces. Going to make the area a misery to live in

By Anonymous

Parking in the area is already a nightmare, and there is no parking provision for medical centre patients. The number of spaces for residents is grossly inadequate. This level of overdevelopment is purely the result of Southway overpaying for the site which they originally planned to develop as their own head office. There is very little outside space and with no balconies it will be an unhealthy environment for children (and indeed adults ) . The height and scale of the building is out of proportion to its surroundings. It doesn’t seem Southway have taken any notice of local people’s concerns.

By Anonymous

This looks good but there needs to be proper affordable homes through social rent with the Council as landlord. Affordable rent and shared ownership are just more money into the hands of private landlords. The Council needs to make a big step in providing more themselves as part of that 10,000 figure. The stigma with Council housing needs to change to be more like countries such as Belgium which is a fantastic example.

By Mike R

It’s nice that we can ‘afford’ them.

By Eric

Or dear yet another ugly logo box. It looks far too high for the area and the parking provision is woefully lacking for the number of apartments. I doubt they will get planning permission for it particularly as planning expect 100% parking provision. Feel very sorry for residents having to look at this monstrosity if it does get approved.

By Anonymous

Affordable and Didsbury are two words that just don’t go together

By Unimpressed

The height and scale seems perfectly in property on either the surroundings actually. We need to be making best use of our urban land not wasting it on low density housing for the few or the very privileged.

By Pitchfork

So all the talking to residents and getting feedback from locals was just a total waste of time!

The area is already gridlocked with parking, causing issues and safety problems for residents. Adding more to an already jammed area is a ridiculous decision!

By Anonymous

Great to develop the site but that’s ridiculously oversized. Congestion and parking is a nightmare there already, with only half the school full. Squeezing hundreds and hundreds of people in on that little roundabout will be chaos? I’m sure they know it will get scaled back so they started high to help negotiations down the line.

By Anonymous

Awful plans – massive overdevelopment of the area.

By Anonymous

Yes council housing and affordable housing is needed. Unfortunately this is wrong place to put such a large development, especially as nearby residents overwhelmingly pointed out the impact of lack of parking in badly planned estate already suffering parking and vehicle access problems, height of building, drainage problems and overcrowding. All requests for modification of building by residents have been ignored.

By Local resident

The scheme looks ok, good too see apartments go up in the area, however, every apartment should have one parking space with EV charging and a balcony, otherwise it’ll just become a slum building. It’s not a future proofed design at all!


Anyone buying or renting these with a car, looking to park will enter into and add to the living hell and chaos for car parking and road safety in the area which was created by the office block and compounded by the school. It’s nuts, the place should be a car park or sufficient alternatives provided to park and the development of public transport. Tram is fine for city but try getting to other places for shift workers.
Already difficulties for emergency service access and bin lorry / delivery.
Building proposed if 8 stories is out of keeping with much of the area. Foolish.

By Boulevard resident

I wonder how affordable the maintenance charge is.

By Anonymous

On the whole a great scheme with much merit.I am again chiming with: balconywatch.Balconies?and my other pet interest roof space …gardens/terrace. Surley it’s a no brained.How much does it really cost for the provision of balconies and a flat roof space?

By Robert Fuller

Ridiculous over development with no concern to overflow parking (which is already limited and affecting access for emergency vehicles such as ambulances, and also rubbish removal vehicles) traffic and congestion-blocking residents access and just causing absolute mayhem around boulevard!! Affordable??? But at what expense??! Normal living conditions for all residents -that’s what!! Horrendous proposal that will cause miserable living conditions for all around this area

By Jay Jay

The comments here show that NIMBYs are never satisfied. If you put in 100% parking, they’ll complain about congestion. If you reduce the size of the development, they’ll complain about affordability. And on it will go, with an endless series of excuses. NIMBYs can’t be reasoned with, and they can’t be appeased. They should be ignored for the obstructionist busybodies that they are.

Get it built.

By S

S – completely agree. We need to deliver tens of thousands of homes per year across Greater Manchester to sort the housing shortage. We are never going to achieve this by pandering to NIMBYs. Councillors need to grow up and start making decisions for the good of the wider city, rather than to secure one or two votes from loud mouths.

By Anonymous

I confess I know little of this particular development, only what I read on PNW but how disappointing to see the usual comments on NIMBYs being “never satisfied” blah blah. Unfortunately once again this trite label comes up to be used against those who very reasonably might not agree with a particular development. Using words like NIMBY is the first sign that reason has left the building. Everyone on here should be free to have an opinion without such reductive and childish labels being applied.

By Anonymous

In response to ‘S’ -“ignore busy bodies and get it built”?? Who are you to say that peoples opinions and concerns are to be ignored? You obviously do not live in the vicinity of this proposal – if you did you would not be so flippant! Also the size of this building completely dwarfs the block of flats alongside it- blocking out light and privacy- so no – it is not in keeping with the rest of the buildings! (In response to a previous comment)

By J

Fascinating that those who accuse everyone else of being NIMBYs or loud mouths are the very ones that on these boards are the loudest with the most obnoxious comments. That tells you all you need to know. I’ve seen worse developments than this get approved in Manchester but not many.

By Anonymous

How on Earth this could be classed as over development is insane to me. There is something deeply wrong with the English mentality to cities, no one elsewhere in Europe would not bat and eye at this medium density style development. I see bring it on and everywhere within the M60 to tackle the housing crisis. Not only is it at the perfect scale, but it is very aesthetically pleasing to look at!

By Anonymous

This proposed development is too high to be sympathetic to the existing residential buildings in the area, both neighbouring and opposite. Parking is already inadequate. Those visiting local businesses on The Boulevard park on the surrounding roads, as do users of the nearby Withington tram stop, where no parking was provided in the plans. As Didsbury High School expands, even more pressure will be placed on the neighbouring residential roads. It is essential that those considering this development not only take parking into consideration but react to the numerous relevant statements on parking from those who experience the existing problems.

By Anonymous

Massive overdevelopment of the area that will place huge pressure on traffic and parking in an already hugely congested area. Only 35 parking spaces for 76 flats; together with existing problems and traffic from Didsbury High and the medical centre, the congestion will be a nightmare. Bin lorries and emergency services have already had problems accessing the roads. It’s fascinating as to why other developments – Jessiefield, the Dandara development, have been opposed, but Labour is ignoring concerns and trying to push this through. The veneer of social housing is a cover – Southway wants to recoup its costs. Everything about this development is contrary to planning regulations.

By Lex.

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox


Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below