Residents launch judicial review claiming “strange circumstances” behind planning decision

A residents' group has launched a judicial review challenge against Manchester City Council after its planning committee granted planning permission for a student block it had previously refused permission for on four occasions.

In a letter before claim, the group, Block the Block, argued that planning officers gave incorrect guidance, failed to give reasons for deviating from a previous decision and that certain policy was given too much weight in the decision.

Planning committee members granted permission to developer Curlew to build the nine-story student block, which is designed to house around 150 students, in January 2024.

The committee had previously refused four different iterations of the proposal dating back to May 2021, mainly because the development was contrary to maintaining a sustainable mixed neighbourhood and because of the size of the building.

The developers reduced the height of the proposed building by two storeys ahead of their application which was considered in January.

The planning officer's January report recommended councillors approve the application, stating that: "With the scale and massing of the building reduced and being less than the development allowed on appeal, it is not considered there would be undue adverse impact on the local area or existing residents."

The officer also noted that refusing on the scale and the dominant visual impact of the development "could not be reasonably sustained", and concluded that the proposal conformed to the development plan and "there are no material considerations which would indicate otherwise".

The officer added: "The proposal represents investment near to 'The Corridor' and is wholly consistent with planning policies for the site (Policy H12) and would help realise regeneration benefits and meet demand for student accommodation in a sustainable location. Significant weight should be given to this."

Block the Block argues that the decision was unlawful on four points.

The first point alleged that during the fifth meeting, planning officers incorrectly told the committee that there was no lawful reason for them to refuse the application and that if they did want to refuse, they would have to be 'minded to' refuse again.

"This was wrong because planning committees always have the power to refuse," the group said.

Secondly, it claimed that the committee was incorrectly told that they couldn't refuse the application again on the basis that there was no need for this type of accommodation in the area.

Thirdly, it claimed that planning officers failed to give reasons for deviating from a 2012 decision, "but planning law states that a local planning authority must show consistency in their decision making".

Finally, the group challenged advice from planning officers that a policy published in May 2023 was very important and should be considered as part of the development plan.

"Our argument is that this was wrong advice –  that policy shouldn't have been given the same level of consideration as the development plan," the group said.

Sally Casey, chair of the Aquarius Tenants and Residents Association, which is behind the litigation, described the January meeting as "a complete shambles from start to finish". 

She added: "We believe that the strange circumstances of this planning application warrant a judicial review.

"It's not right that such controversial plans can be pushed through like that – after four previous rejections. We have an alternative vision for the site and will continue to fight for the affordable social housing Hulme needs."

Manchester City Council has been approached for comment.

Adam Carey