{"id":700869,"date":"2026-01-16T23:13:22","date_gmt":"2026-01-16T23:13:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/700869\/"},"modified":"2026-01-16T23:13:22","modified_gmt":"2026-01-16T23:13:22","slug":"the-mancunian-way-the-first-time-in-years","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/700869\/","title":{"rendered":"The Mancunian Way: The first time in years"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ethan Davies witnessed something Manchester hadn’t seen in years on Thursday. Here’s his account from a ring-side seat…<\/p>\n

The new skyscraper was going to tower above neighbour Oxygen – but it’s in tatters now(Image: SimpsonHaugh for LFB via planning documents)<\/p>\n

I witnessed something Manchester hadn\u2019t seen for years yesterday: A developer being told no.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve reported on Manchester city centre development for four years now. I\u2019ve lost count of how many times a flashy CGI has come across my desk and then become reality a year-or-so later.<\/p>\n

My excitement levels for a planning application arguably form a half-decent marker of how much Manchester\u2019s grown up. There was a time when 20 storeys piqued my interest.<\/p>\n

Then 30 became the minimum for a \u2018big deal\u2019, but that all changed when Renaker unveiled Plot D in 2023, a 71-storey behemoth that made anything shorter than 50-storeys seem quaint.<\/p>\n

So when Liquid Funding Business (LFB) revealed its plans for a 50-storey skyscraper in October 2024, it seemed business-as-usual. It was planned for where Stockton\u2019s furniture shop has been for generations, a fairly-sized plot of land near Piccadilly train and bus stations that could host hundreds of flats.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The planned 50 storey tower, where Stockton’s furniture store is, was going to make a \u00a313m loss(Image: SimpsonHaugh for LFB via planning portal)<\/p>\n

The council had already drawn up a development blueprint for the neighbourhood. Although the planning application was a bit taller than its upper limit, it\u2019s not uncommon for developers to slash a few floors out midway through the process, as we saw in Ardwick earlier that year.<\/p>\n

But then the rows started and it became apparent this wasn\u2019t going to be plain sailing.<\/p>\n

Delaying and deferring<\/p>\n

LFB\u2019s 750-flat proposal was first debated in November, when councillors deferred making a final decision to investigate its potential impacts on light on the neighbouring Oxygen tower. Oxygen residents then presented a last-minute report to the planning committee in December, forcing another delay.<\/p>\n

Extra time didn\u2019t resolve differences between LFB and Oxygen residents, who argued their expected light loss \u2018is so substantial they will rely on artificial light for much of the day\u2019, telling councillors on Thursday (January 15) \u2018it\u2019s not unreasonable for new schemes to respond and overwhelm\u2019.<\/p>\n

LFB representatives hit back in the town hall planning meeting: \u201cThe critical point is the resultant natural light on the affected windows will be broadly [in line] with city centre locations as benchmarked.\u201d<\/p>\n

A \u00a313m loss revealed<\/p>\n

Manchester council has approved city centre towers which cause light loss before, though. LFB\u2019s real problems arrived as soon as Coun Sam Wheeler opened his mouth.<\/p>\n

After pointing out the scheme was set to make a \u00a313m loss, giving scant chance affordable flats would be built, he said it failed to meet the authority\u2019s \u2018strategic regeneration framework\u2019 (SRF), the masterplan for the area.<\/p>\n

He explained: \u201cThis development breaks the SRF in three key ways.<\/p>\n

\u201cFirstly, it states the upper limit will not exceed 45 storeys\u2026 with the majority being lower. Two buildings of 25 and 50 storeys is over-development.<\/p>\n

\u201cSecondly, the SRF calls for integration. The development defies the laws of economics but it cannot defy the laws of physics.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Floor 33 of the larger tower, where amenity space for ‘podcast studios’ and ‘yoga rooms’ may have been housed(Image: SimpsonHaugh for LFB via planning documents)<\/p>\n

\u201cGreat Ancoats Street has illegal levels of pollution. The evidence is if you build a canyon, pollution will stay at street level.<\/p>\n

\u201cThirdly, the SRF calls for a socially diverse neighbourhood. The minimum rent level does not permit this, and a lack of affordable housing breaks Manchester\u2019s housing policy aims and this SRF specifically.\u201d<\/p>\n

The dissection of LFB\u2019s plans wasn\u2019t over, though. Next, fellow Piccadilly politician Jon-Connor Lyons said light and height problems could have been resolved earlier \u2014 but developers failed to meet with him before they requested planning permission.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn my eight years as a councillor, that has never happened before,\u201d he remarked.<\/p>\n

The dream dies<\/p>\n

After Manchester waited years to block a skyscraper, it was done in minutes.<\/p>\n

Paul Andrews, the veteran councillor always ready to grasp the nettle, formally proposed the committee refused the bid.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe should not be seeing fancy yoga rooms. We should be seeing affordable housing,\u201d added Angela Gartside when she seconded it.<\/p>\n

The committee voted and it was unanimous: No planning permission.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Ethan Davies witnessed something Manchester hadn’t seen in years on Thursday. Here’s his account from a ring-side seat……\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":698625,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8813],"tags":[8830,748,393,4884,2465,8086,8828,29712,25785,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-700869","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-manchester","8":"tag-ancoats","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-england","11":"tag-great-britain","12":"tag-manchester","13":"tag-manchester-city-centre","14":"tag-manchester-council","15":"tag-manchester-development","16":"tag-the-mancunian-way","17":"tag-uk","18":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115907317588111173","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=700869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700869\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/698625"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=700869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=700869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=700869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}