黑洞社区

Conservation group Save has fired a salvo of objections against a controversial development proposed for the centre of Manchester by former footballers Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs.

The charity has submitted a detailed 12-page rebuttal written by a retired planning officer attempting to demolish all 44 of the stated public benefits attributed to the scheme by its backers.

The 拢200m St Michael鈥檚 proposals by the former Manchester United stars have been recommended for approval by the city鈥檚 planning officers ahead of a decision by the planning committee this Thursday.

They feature a 40-storey tower with up to 189 apartments and a 216-room hotel. A separate 10-storey block would contain 13,721sq m of new commercial space.

The scheme was redesigned by former RIBA president Stephen Hodder鈥檚 practice Hodder & Partners after Make was dropped from the project amid an earlier row about its design.

Hodder鈥檚 plans would demolish fewer historic buildings but Save director Henrietta Billings said it was a 鈥渇antastically sensitive鈥� area, and argued the existing buildings on the site could be adapted and extended 鈥� 鈥渨ithout a 40-storey tower crashing into the historic core of the city鈥�.

Marcus Binney, the charity鈥檚 executive president, said: 鈥淭he revival of Manchester鈥檚 near dormant historic core over the last 30 years into a vibrant city centre full of restored Victorian buildings and well-designed modern ones is an outstanding achievement.

鈥淚t has depended not on flashy iconic buildings but first-class local architects who have maintained the muscular grit of the city centre responding to its red brick warehouses, mills and office chambers. Manchester planners must not be allowed to destroy their own finest achievement.鈥�

Save commissioned Alec Forshaw, former head of heritage at Islington council and now an independent planning consultant, to write the report.

He argues that many of the benefits claimed by the applicant are not public benefits within the definition of the National Planning Policy Framework.

鈥淲e consider that several of the claimed benefits appear to be exaggerated with others not backed up by evidence,鈥� he said.

鈥淚n our view, the very significant degree of harm caused by the proposal far outweighs any potential public benefits from the scheme.

鈥淔or example, the applicants list the new 鈥榟igh-quality apartments for a growing and higher-skilled workforce, aimed at higher-earning executives and personnel鈥� as a public benefit of the scheme.

鈥淲e argue the provision of luxury flats in not a public benefit. On the contrary there is no provision of social housing in the scheme.鈥�

Manchester planners acknowledged 鈥渇inely balanced judgement鈥� was needed but said: 鈥淭he uses proposed would make an important contribution to the economic growth of the city.鈥�