Watkin Jones loses Fallowfield student housing appeal

The planning inspectorate backed up Manchester City Council’s decision to reject plans for a £23.5m student accommodation block.

Watkin Jones had wanted to construct a 13-storey building on the site of the former Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers offices. The oldest building on the site, Oakley Villa, would be retained in the scheme.

The plans, drawn up by Tim Groom Architects, would have seen the creation of 425 bedrooms for students.

Manchester City Council rejected the project in September.

The height of the proposed build and the impact a purpose-built student accommodation project would have on the area were ultimately the two biggest factors in the scheme’s refusal.

Planning inspector Darren Hendley hinged his dismissal of the appeal on Policy H12 of Manchester City Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document. That policy outlines when priority will be given to PBSA projects and the criteria that must be met to do so.

Two pieces of criteria are not met by the Watkin Jones proposal, according to Hendley and the council. These focus on high-density development being in locations where it is compatible with existing developments and on plans having a positive regeneration impact.

Hendley said that the 13-storey building is noticeably taller than its surroundings and would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the rest of the townscape. He noted that the project would not sit within the Fallowfield District Centre, which is where high-density development is considered appropriate.

View of the rejected scheme from a distance. Credit: via planning documents

The plans would not aid in the regeneration of the area either, Hendley argued, because it is completely for students and would only have one room that could be booked by the wider community. The plans have no housing mix and the community living there would be unlikely to integrate with the rest of the neighbourhood.

An absence of a formal agreement with a university also counted against the scheme.

Hendley also did not give credence to the idea that a PBSA in the area would open up homes for families to use.

“Whether it would result in private housing stock being brought back into non-student use cannot be said with any great certainty because it is not known where the future occupiers would come from or their accommodation preferences,” the planning inspector wrote in his decision.

“Furthermore, I was informed that student numbers have increased and as a result so would the need for accommodation for this type of occupier, which includes private housing stock.”

Hendley did say that other reasons for refusal of the project – namely the impact it would have on those living nearby in terms of noise – were not valid.

The planning inspector also noted that the scheme had strong economic merit, projecting a £23.5m economic benefit and creating 80 jobs in construction.

Still, the benefits did not outweigh the negatives.

“In coming to my conclusion, I have considered all relevant matters that have been raised,” Hendley wrote. “That the proposal would not be in a suitable location with regard to development plan regeneration and housing policies, and would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, are decisive.

“The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations to outweigh this conflict.”

Turley was the planning consultant and Layer.studio was the landscape architect for the project.

Want to learn more about the scheme? The application reference number with Manchester City Council is 129020/FO/2020. The appeal’s reference number with the planning inspectorate is APP/B4215/W/21/3286831.