The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the reports of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that described that the proposal was for the erection of a retail foodstore (Class E) with new access arrangements, following demolition of existing structures, alongside the creation of a new vehicular access to the adjacent sports facility. It was proposed that the store is operated by Aldi.

In response to the application as originally submitted, 14 representations have been

received. 1 in support, 1 neutral and 12 of which object to the proposal. Following

revised information and a further period of renotification, 4 additional representations

have been received objecting to the proposal.

The Planning Officer stated that officers were aware of the late objection circulated to Members of Committee and brought the attention of Members to the section within the report which deals with Retail Impact and further stated that officers are satisfied that this matter has been properly assessed against local policies and national guidance and that sufficient information had been submitted in order for the Committee to be able to determine the application. The Planning Officer drew the Committee’s attention to a minor re-wording of Condition 32, should the Committee agree the recommendation, which stated that that the retail use shall not commence until the agreed flood lighting has been provided, and in relation to condition 30, additional wording which states that a timescale for delivery of the approved works is required to be agreed in writing. Also concerns have been raised by neighbouring occupiers in relation to the location of the pedestrian crossing. The location is indicative and the final detail and location will be subject to further consultation through the Section 278 highways process. It had been confirmed that a degree of piling would be required, due to ground conditions. This had been carefully considered due to possible implications for United Utility assets beneath the site. The process would use a low vibration method and vibration monitoring would be in place. This construction issue would be subject to control through the building regulation process.

An objector attended the hearing and addressed the Committee, stating that they were representing Eastgate residents who supported the concept of an Aldi store in the area but stated that they had not had all the details of consultations. There had been a right to buy offer for the entire site which individual leaseholder had been notified of last Christmas with a tight deadline, which was not taken up. The future protection and safety of the Eastgate apartments was at risk and the objector was seeking an agreement for confirmation that the phase 2 site investigation report is a condition of planning and will be released for inspection prior to development. Clarity on the type of foundation and vibrations that may impact on residents was sought, as well as an open line of communication with the insurers to the developer. The objector wished for confirmation that the sports ground would not add to delays in accessing homes. 24/7 access was required for residents. Timings of noisy construction and noise levels, a lighting report, landscaping and biodiversity issues were also of concern.

Councillor Priest, Ward Councillor for Charlestown, addressed the Committee and stated that she had the support of Ward Councillor Kirkpatrick, adding that they have had additional conversations with local people and that these had broadly followed what was outlined in the report. Not everything discussed had been 100% positive though. The ongoing delivery of goods to the unit, lighting and access had been raised as concerns, rather than objections. It had been mentioned that there was another supermarket nearby and was this unnecessary. It was noted that the positives outweighed the negatives and that consumer choice was a positive point as well as reliable bus routes to the other shopping areas being questioned. There were concerns around fly tipping and anti-social behaviour on the site in it’s current state. There had been pre-application discussions with access, biodiversity, net gain and noise from deliveries raised. The open channel of communication with the developer had been refreshing and the Ward Councillor was confident that disruption would be minimal. Delivery timings can be set as suitable for the area. It was added that the other supermarket was not a walkable distance from the proposed area and there was no bus route either. Many locals were looking forward to being able to walk to a nearby supermarket. Notwithstanding some minor concerns for ongoing discussions, the two Ward Councillors for Charlestown were in support of the scheme.

The Director for Planning stated that matters raised in relation to freehold, leasehold and insurance could not be taken into consideration when determining a planning application; however, the applicant was present and had heard the comments presented. The report addressed many of the objector’s other concerns.

The Planning Officer stated that there was a construction management plan in place to address vehicles, parking, routing and access, loss of light had been assessed and included in the report, a full landscaping scheme is included with 26 new trees and hours of operation and servicing are all covered by a condition.

The applicant addressed the Committee on the application, stating that this application was recommended for approval with 140 representations of support from local residents. The site was currently used for a restaurant and car park and is permitted to be used as a retail unit without need for planning permission. Minimal investment would be required in repurposing the site but the applicant’s plans were ambitious for both the local economy and community. The retail unit would be set in a disadvantaged Ward of Manchester and would be of benefit to local people. 40-50 full and part time jobs would be created, with an emphasis on employing local people with a planning condition in place to support this, as well as construction jobs during the development phase. The current site was unsightly and the applicant had worked with Manchester City Council and GMP and believe this will be a credit to the local area. 26 new trees were to be planted. Deliverable economic development was guaranteed to attract further investment. The overall investment will exceed £5m and the retail unit could be delivered within 18 months of securing permission. Part of the site would use some of the nearby playing fields. To compensate, the applicant was proposing a package for the club comprising a new access road, flood lighting, fencing and giving some land back to the club. This has been agreed with both clubs and Sports England and are guaranteed via planning conditions. No statutory consultees had objected to the scheme. . The applicant had worked with officers to ensure that residential amenity impacts are mitigated, hours of operation and servicing were subject to controls and a delivery management plan would be put in place. The applicant requested that the Committee approve this application for investment in the local area to progress.

Councillor Andrews moved the Officer’s recommendation of Approve for the application.

Councillor Riasat seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the printed reports, as well as the amendments to conditions explained in the Planning Officer’s presentation.