Revised Albert Bridge House proposals up for approval
Oval Real Estate’s debut Manchester scheme proposes 800 apartments in towers reaching 37 and 49 storeys and a 17-storey office block featuring 250,000 sq ft of workspace.
The developer has secured consent for the redevelopment of Albert Bridge House off Bridge Street near the border with Salford once before.
In 2023, Manchester City Council approved plans for a Studio Egret West-designed project featuring a 45-storey skyscraper with 367 homes and a distinctive 350,000 sq ft office block rising to 19 storeys.
However, uncertainty around the office market and a buoyant residential landscape prompted Oval to redesign the project last year.
The developer’s updated proposals feature an additional residential tower and 100,000 sq ft reduction in office space compared to the plans approved in 2023.
The vacant 1950s modernist office building that sits on the site currently would be demolished under the plans.
Manchester City Council’s planning committee will meet to discuss the proposals, alongside several others, next Thursday.
Credit: Studio Egret West
The planning department has recommended the scheme should be approved with a mechanism attached that calls for a review of the project’s viability at a later date.
At present, Oval claims viability is such that the provision of any affordable homes would render the scheme undeliverable from a financial standpoint.
The idea behind the mechanism is to give the city council a way to secure a contribution towards affordable homes should viability improve as the project progresses.
The project team for the scheme features Deloitte as planner, Urban Green, Gardiner & Theobold, AKTII, Hilson Moran, Hoare Lea, Pager Power, CBRE, Savills, Counter Context, Cundall, Turley, Curtins, and DPR.
To learn more about the project, search for reference number 143164/FO/2025 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal.
this looks cool
By Jason
The flats look “OK” but the office is a bit of a turd. Come on.
By It's OK - go taller!!
Was unsure. But I visited the architect’s site, and I’m now sold. Especially like making more of the Irwell. It’s a real shame just how unaccessible it is.
By Tom
Can never be sure with cgi’s but looks a nice change from the usual Simpson Haugh designs.
By Anonymous
A teenager’s idea of a skyscraper made real.
This looks absolutely ridiculous, the sort of design you could drop on any plot, in any city in the land. It’s almost as though the designers have never visited site and have just been instructed to maximise saleable floorspace, slap some generic cladding on and add some planner-pleasing green fluff at the base.
This will severely detract from Spinningfields, Deansgate, the riverfront and the really promising office proposals emerging next door.
Hopefully the planning committee will see fit to ignore the officers recommendations and (justifiably in my opinion) boot it out.
All in my humble opinion of course.
By Really do not like this
Not a box, therefore better than every other Manchester tower
By Anonymous
Don’t know the architectural term, but the breaking of the vertical lines on all 3 buildings offends! Would put me off totally, when spending that sort of money on an apartment/penthouse I would want a tall, elegant building that makes a statement in the city, not one dressed in some latest fashion that probably will be finished before I even move in!
By M101
Keep the existing Albert Bridge House, it’s a much more interesting building than this proposal.
By Anonymous
There are too many office blocks in Manchester we don’t need any more
By Anonymous
Is that it now? Architectural design now consists of checkerplate elevations? This could be anywhere in the country. At this rate, ai will be a godsend to replacing the profession.
By Anon
I come here hoping that one day I will see a great design worthy of the great city of manchester and each time I leave horribly disappointed. This is an architectural gadget ai generated of zero interest. Checkerplate cladding echos that of SimponHaugh. We need more ambition more risk and a change of architects.
By John