Shudehill apartment inquiry begins today
Developer Interland Holdings is going head-to-head with Manchester City Council in an attempt to overturn the authority’s decision to reject its plans for a 175-flat scheme near the city’s bus interchange.
Beginning today, the inquiry will look at whether the city council’s reasons for refusing the £56.7m Shudehill development in April this year were justified.
Interland’s scheme proposed the creation of three blocks, rising to 19 storeys at its tallest point, located next to Shudehill bus station and tram stop.
The project would also have seen some existing historic buildings retained, including part of 29 Shudehill and the façade of the Rosenfield Building, a former department store located at 18-20 Dantzic Street in Manchester.
Manchester City Council refused Interland’s application to redevelop a site next to Shudehill Interchange due to concerns the project would “undermine the ongoing regeneration of the city centre”.
There were four reasons for refusal in total. They were:
- The siting, scale, massing and appearance would result in a poor-quality design.
- The overly large and overbearing development and would not meet required design standards for tall buildings in the city centre of Manchester
- Harm to heritage assets and failure to preserve or enhance the character of the Shudehill conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings
- Loss of parts of 29 Shudehill, a grade two-listed building, which would cause harm to and fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Interland argues that the benefits of the scheme, designed by Buttress Architects, “far outweigh” the harm referenced in the city council’s reasons for refusal.
To find out more about the proposals, search for application number 121195/FO/2018 on Manchester City Council’s planning portal.
I really hope this is refused. Such a poor scheme.
By Byronic
I hope MCC win this. However I would love to know the real reason MCC made this decision considering what they usually approve.
By Mancunian
A very poor scheme indeed. I really do hope it doesn’t get built.
By John
Although there is an acute need for housing in the city centre, we cannot be permitting these types of buildings which are the slums of the future.
By Anonymous
I hope the planning inspectorate sends this proposal right back to the drawing board. Lazy, poor design with no respect for the existing Grade II buildings.
By Anonymous
Horrendous, bland, boxy design and the exact sort of thing MCC should be refusing. Manchester deserves so much better than this in what is a prime location. Lets hope that PINS agree and we get a proper landmark proposal at some point in the future.
By Anonymous
For once I think the councils reasons for refusing are bang on. Buttress do some great stuff but this is so poorly designed and thought out. I hope it’s more to do with the client steam rolling design decisions and not a lack of design talent by Buttress. It needs to go back to the drawing board and start again. Sadly at this point, I expect too many consultant fees have already been burnt up to start over again. I really hope this appeal fails and the refusal stands.
By Anonymous
Hope MCC win, it’s awful.
By Heritage Action
I agree with the other comments here. This application was the only time I’ve ever felt the need to object to a proposed new building, so I hope the decision to refuse is upheld.
With some thought and imagination and decent design standards, I think an amazing proposal that retains the historic buildings/features of this site whilst still providing high density homes is possible here.
By Anonymous
The area around Shudehill bus station is a mess and has been for years. The Council should have worked with the applicant to secure a better design with more balconies, although if anything the scheme is not dense enough for this location. It would have suited a landmark tower with the excellent ground floor interaction this scheme provides. The transformation of the area that comprehensive redevelopment such as this delivers far outweighs losing some derelict warehouses. I suggest people visit the site before spouting the usual nonsense. There’s enough examples of this type of warehouse elsewhere in the city, much better to get rid of these which are blighting a key central transport node and giving a terrible first impression to visitors alighting at Shudehill.
By Anonymous
Crazy, it’s one of Manchester’s best looking proposals, get it built
By Gilly
To be honest, the current site is completely ugly, rundown and of no architectural interest. Whilst this building isn’t anything special, it is a step up from the current state which is really poor.
By EOD
Current proposal is awful. Should restore the existing warehouses and maybe build a sympathetic looking new build at the back with some active frontage onto the bus station.
By Anonymous
Well Done Manchester C C
Don’t often agree with comments BUT SPOT ON
Heritage Manchester MUST be looked after
The Mills and brick buildings like these will still be there after some 2nd rate 21st C buildings are ready to be demolished!
By Brian Jacobs
Another ugly spud in an area of historical importance. Stop building ugly spuds.
By Anonymous
People who protested about the Glassworks tower on Shudehill said that approving it would be the thin end of the wedge. Here we go, Interland Holdings are using Glasswork’s existence as justification for their new proposal. Manchester needs to hold on to as many old buildings as it can to stop it rapidly turning into the Croydon of the North. Those buildings represent the culture and history of Manchester and MCC should be trying everything they can to facilitate a new function for these buildings.
By McGinno
Makes me think of the Arndale. A butter coated biscuit. Has to be refused.
By Parisian
There should be an inquiry into the lack of balconies on this scheme
By Balcony Warrior
Agree with refusal. Loss of amenity of heritage buildings & area
By Janet Breeze