Spanner in works for ‘too tall’ Parsonage Gardens office scheme
Historic England has formally objected to Beaconsfield Commercial’s plans to knock down two buildings within the conservation area and build a 14-storey office scheme.
The statutory consultee has citied both the importance of the structures due to be knocked down and the project’s scale as reasons for its objection.
The proposals, in the pipeline since 2020, would see 1 North Parade and 5 Parsonage Gardens demolished. Beaconsfield said the buildings, which are not listed, could not be retained on viability grounds.
However, Historic England believes that the buildings are “attractive examples of 19th century Manchester warehouses, which help tell the story of how the city developed during the Industrial Revolution”, it said in a statement.
The public body is also unhappy about what has been proposed to replace the buildings, calling the office scheme “too tall, too large, and out of keeping with its surroundings”.
Designed by Squire & Partners, the scheme was submitted to Manchester City Council in January and features 100,000 sq ft of office space and a 7,000 sq ft ground floor restaurant.
The development, first proposed in late 2020, started out life at 17 storeys and with a more contemporary design.
Following feedback from Historic England, the scheme was reworked from a material standpoint so that it would be more in-keeping with the vernacular of the conservation area.
However, the changes made have not appeased Historic England.
Catherine Dewar, North West regional director at Historic England, said: “At Historic England we’re always keen to work with developers to find solutions that deliver growth while respecting Manchester’s unique character.
“We’ve done this successfully on schemes like St Michael’s, where collaboration led to a better outcome for the city’s heritage. Sadly, the current proposals for Parsonage Gardens don’t strike that balance and we would lose some of Manchester’s heritage as a result.
“Demolishing these buildings would cause significant and irreversible harm to the conservation area and the new [building] would dominate the setting of one of the city centre’s rare green open spaces.
“Manchester’s heritage is one of its greatest assets and a great source of pride for people who love this city. Research shows that properties in conservation areas see values rise by around 9% so looking after historic places like Parsonage Gardens isn’t just the right thing to do – it makes good economic sense too.”
Historic England also noted that the developer’s viability appraisal concluded the project is unviable, adding that the scheme would conflict with national planning policy, local heritage policy, and the city council’s design guidance for the conservation area.
Whether Historic England’s objection is enough to halt the development remains to be seen. In 2024, the organisation launched a scathing attack on Salboy’s plans for a 76-storey skyscraper in the city centre but to no avail.
Well done Historic England. Lets hope Manchester Councillors vote to protect the heritage assets in this case, otherwise, this will be another reason they lose more seats to the Greens in May.
By Anonymous
Well done Historic England.
Beaconsfield Commercial are clearly are shameless outfit. Move on to something that actually needs replacing.
By Anonymous
“We overpaid for some historic buildings in decent condition and in a Conservation Area because we thought we could make more money bulldozing them and building something rubbish” isn’t a valid viability argument.
Hopefully MCC develops some backbone here, but there isn’t that much cause for optimism.
By Rotringer
I often disagree with Historic England but on this occasion I agree with everything they have said about this proposed monstrosity. This is an unbelievably ugly poor design and should be rejected by the planning committee.
By Anonymous
It’s great to see Historic England intervening in this way. This proposal is an absolute abomination.
By Anonymous
@Rotringer – I know why don’t we stop any redevelopment so that the building can sit there redundant for the next 10 years. You clearly aren’t a developer otherwise you would understand the viability challenges a scheme like this has.
By Happy Chappy
If this was replacing some unusable asbestos filled 60s monster, then Id be fine with these plans. The current building is firstly very attractive, has character and has formed part of Manchester’s cityscape and history for a long time. Secondly this building can be renovated and upgraded.
The character, history and beauty of Manchester’s built heritage should be saved wherever possible. For once I agree with HE, and hope MCC listen and act on their objection.
By GetItBuilt!
It looks like something from the early 90’s, absolute dross. The building that’s there should be retained and adapted as have other older Manchester buildings
By Jon P
Fully agree with Historic England’s position here. The proposed scheme has very little to get excited about.
By Anon.
Why not keep the façade and externals and then build a 2 storey smaller tower behind? Expensive I know but appeases the retention of a small historic building and increases density, St Michaels does that quite well I feel, why not here, just with less scale.
By Retrofit
@Happy Chappy (March 03, 2026 at 9:12 am) – the building is occupied so I’m not sure you’re correct in that its redundant. It needs a good bit of TLC but can certainly be retained and enhanced rather than knocked down and replaced with the rubbish that’s been proposed. With the demand for good quality office space in Manchester, a high quality refurb would definitely bring in interest parties wanting to occupy in such a great location.
By Anonymous
THANK YOU HISTORIC ENGLAND!! Stop careless developers from destroying our heritage. We have lost too much already!
By Anonymous
Good. The proposal is hideous
By Steve
One of the worst schemes I have seen in Manchester. The individuals behind this have ruined their reputations.
By Heritage Action
Well done Historic England. Parsonage Gardens needs to be retained on its current layout, respecting the architectural importance of the buildings and green open space. The proposed 1980s style development is not in any way appropriate for this location or Manchester!
By Ms Johnson
Happy Chappy – I work as a developer and I’d be embarrassed to put this proposal forward. This is staggeringly poor.
By Anonymous
Happy Chappy 9.12am – there isn’t a viability issue to concern anyone else if it doesn’t get built, just a developer who has probably overpaid for a site they may not be now be able to develop in the way they were hoping.
This is a risk they chose to take, and if they want to empty out currently-occupied buildings and leave them that way, that would also be their choice. Alternatively, they may have bought cheap and are doing what businesses do, viability assessments not always being reliable.
The same developer was pushing the inevitable SimpsonHaugh scheme a few years ago, and there was also talk of a hotel. The lack of progress is because everyone knew this would be a difficult site.
By Rotringer
Historic England are bang on here. The developer needs to decide to adapt the current buildings they purchased. Or place them back on the open market. Demolishing the existing well sized buildings for their own purpose and over massing to overly dominate Parsonage Gardens are very sound and material grounds for refusal.
By Mike
Good. This is a terrible scheme.
By Dr B
The Relentless office block that they’re building as part of Kendals is circa 14 Storeys also
By Bob Dawson
Squire & Partners have done some very decent work. This is just extremely lazy – second-rate po-mo.
Well done HE.
By Rye
In a sustainability‑focused world, it’s surprising how quickly we choose to demolish buildings rather than reuse them. Having worked in development teams for many years, I know retention can feel like a challenge, skills are scarce, complexities increase, and costs rise.
But refurbishment and redevelopment can work effectively together. When buildings outlive their original purpose, good design, sensible investment, and a willingness to preserve local character can turn aging structures into valuable, modern assets – and think of the ESG credits – but lets not go there.
Retaining existing buildings isn’t nostalgia, it’s sustainable, practical, and often the most responsible path. Instead of erasing the past, we should be finding ways to repurpose it.
By steve5839
What would Howard Bernstein do?
By Anonymous